MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7111359188 · doi:10.1111/csp2.70209

Communities with diverse subsistence needs require a variety of functional tree traits

2025· article· en· W7111359188 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Science and Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersVetenskapsrådetIdea Wild
KeywordsSubsistence agricultureFirewoodBiodiversityBiological dispersalPreferenceCoppicingResource (disambiguation)Tree (set theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tree species preference is an understudied yet crucial component of sustainable forest management, as unsustainable harvesting can lead to non‐random loss of functional traits. We examine wood resource preference across five regions of Madagascar's biodiverse eastern humid forests. We asked forest users in 19 men's and 19 women's focus groups to list their preferred tree species for common short‐ (charcoal, firewood) and long‐term (house construction, furniture, tools) uses. We then measured functional traits of 260 preferred and common tree species: height, DBH, bark thickness, specific leaf area, wood specific gravity, and seed dispersal syndrome in the surrounding landscape. Using household interviews, we determined the average distance households would need to travel to access each species. Forest users preferred shorter travel distances for short‐term uses, whereas species preferences for long‐term uses were associated with specific functional traits. Women focused mainly on firewood and tool provisioning and were more likely to prefer species at a shorter walking distance than men. We found no clear relationships between tree species preference and dispersal syndromes, suggesting that a diverse community of seed‐dispersing animal species may be necessary to maintain traits preferred for tree harvest in Malagasy humid forests. We suggest strategies to support reducing deforestation, promoting traditional ecological knowledge, and increasing accessibility of wood resources to women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.266
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueConservation Science and PracticeSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207