MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

What Role for Local Communities in the Conservation of the Bontioli Forest, Burkina Faso?

2025· preprint· en· W4409400514 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M Traore, Jean‐François Bissonnette

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeographyAgroforestryEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental planningForestryEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decline of forests in many countries has prompted governments to adopt conservation measures for forest resources. In the total and partial wildlife reserves of Bontioli, forest conservation appears difficult to implement despite the state's adoption of so-called participatory management approaches. Forest cover loss persists due to the combined effects of natural and human factors. Authorities are attempting to preserve the forest in a context of growing local needs, driven—though not exclusively—by demographic pressure. Using a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative and quantitative data, we mapped this forest retreat and analyzed its underlying causes. We also examined local perceptions of forest conservation. While forest decline is widely acknowledged and lamented, it highlights divergent views between authorities and local populations regarding concepts such as deforestation and conservation. The diversity of perceptions, depending on place of residence and the level of dependence on the land resources of the Bontioli reserves, also plays a key role in the acceptance of policies aimed at forest preservation. For sustainable forest management, the development of socio-economic infrastructure, the transformation of a part of the reserve into an agroforestry park, and the ongoing consultation of local communities emerge as effective solutions for safeguarding the forest.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207