Les droits des populations locales et autochtones à l'épreuve des politiques de gestion forestière et de conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La problématique des droits des populations locales et autochtones est plus que jamais au coeur de l'agenda international de la gestion des ressources forestières (Sikor et Stahl 2011). En effet, ces groupes de population réclament un ensemble de droits inhérents aux tenures foncières et forestières, aux cultures locales et à la parole sur la gestion des ressources naturelles adjacentes à leurs biotopes. Face à ces demandes et pressions sociales venues autant de la base que des ONG qui prétendent les représenter, la communauté internationale et plusieurs États ont mis en place divers mécanismes juridiques qui reconnaissent et promeuvent à la fois les droits et devoirs de ces catégories sociales vulnérables sur le plan de la biodiversité. L'une des réponses aux demandes des acteurs riverains relatives à la justice environnementale est, sans doute, l'approche de conservation des ressources naturelles axée sur la promotion et le respect de leurs droits (Campese et al. 2009).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".