Landowner perceptions of the value of natural forest and natural grassland in a mosaic ecosystem in southern Brazil
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The forest–grassland mosaics of southern Brazil have been subject to many land use and policy changes over the decades. Like many grasslands around the world, the Campos grasslands are declining with few conservation efforts underway. In contrast, forests receive much attention and many incentives. It is hypothesized that perception of land cover has the potential to shape ecosystems. Here we conduct a questionnaire to further our understanding of decision-making practices that alter landscapes ( Campos grassland, Araucaria forest, agriculture and plantation) and direct land policies in the region. Our analysis reveals that plantations are significantly less desirable than the other landscape types. However, plantation land use has increased by 87 % over the past few decades, as a result of industry and government incentives. The proportions of other landscape types have remained consistent over the past two decades. Restoration of native vegetation is not a priority of landowners and restoration would require a financial incentive.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it