La pêche ghanéenne ou artisanale dans l’aire marine protégée de Douala-Edéa : ressources exploitées, pratiques et organisations spatiales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article met en lumière les pratiques et les organisations spatiales des pêcheurs artisans du parc national de Douala Edéa au Cameroun. À travers une approche halieutique et une approche sociogéographique, les résultats ont permis de montrer qu’il existe des similitudes de pratiques entre les pêcheurs ghanéens dits pêcheurs semi-industriels et les pêcheurs artisans nigérians. Ces analogies sont confirmées tant sur le point des ressources capturées et des technologies employées. De ce fait, la pêche ghanéenne ou awasha ne serait pas semi-industrielle mais une pêche artisanale en milieu marin. Ce travail souhaite interpeler les pouvoirs publics camerounais sur la nécessité de repenser les pêches artisanales maritimes qui abritent des typologies variées comme la pêche artisanale nigériane, la pêche artisanale camerounaise, la pêche artisanale ghanéenne ou awasha. En outre, l’avènement des Aires Marines Protégées et des Autres Mesures de Conservation Efficaces par Zone comme outils de gouvernance des pêcheries représente un canevas indispensable pour amplifier les recherches sur les pêches artisanales maritimes au Cameroun.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".