MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7130529686 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18702267

Developing Community-Based Conservation Programmes for Forest Resources in Southern Ethiopian Highlands: A Systematic Literature Review

2024· article· en· W7130529686 on OpenAlexaff
Mikaela Gelati, Fitwi Abayiche, Biruk Assefa Kebede, Yared Belay

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeforestation (computer science)OverexploitationTraditional knowledgeNatural resourceAgricultureSustainabilitySystematic reviewPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Southern Ethiopian Highlands face significant deforestation due to agricultural expansion and overexploitation of natural resources. A comprehensive search strategy was employed using databases such as Web of Science, Google Scholar, and relevant journals. Studies published between and were included. Community-based conservation programmes have shown mixed success rates in terms of forest regeneration (45% effective) and community engagement (78% participation). There is a need for tailored interventions that address local needs and involve all stakeholders to achieve sustainable forest management outcomes. Develop culturally sensitive education programmes, integrate traditional knowledge into conservation strategies, and establish long-term funding mechanisms.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0180.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207