MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4242836645 · doi:10.5558/tfc77006-1

National News/Nouvelles nationales

2001· article· en· W4242836645 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick Moore

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth, Medicine and Society
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPolitical scienceBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Recently, I submined the following comments on the Coastal Rainforest Coalition's web page "The Paper Industry = Global Forest Destruction" to the FOR-EST Listserve.To date I have received no comments from any of the environmental groups who belong to the CRC.Therefore, I am writing directly to members of the Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace, and Natural Resources Defence Council, with copies to other interested parties.For your reference the URL of the web page I am referring to is: http://www.coastalrainforest.org/staples-tothrowthemaway.htmlCRC is the leading group supporting a market boycott of forest products from various Canadian and other sources.They are making some rather outrageous claims about the paper industry.I believe the claims made on this web page amount to the underlying assumptions that lead to the CRC's anti-forestry and anti-paper policies.If the underlying assumptions of a policy are incorrect, then the policies flowing from those assumptions will be incorrect.Here are the points made by the CRC and my responses to them.CRC: Over 78% of the world's original native forests have been logged or severely degraded.Response: This is apparently a reference to the World Resource Institute's oftrepeated statement that "80% of the world's forests have been lost or degraded."I assume this refers to the approximately 40% of the world's forest that has been converted to agriculture to grow our food and the 40% that is now managed for timber, recreation, wildlife, etc.Under this definition "degraded" is used synonymously with "managed," a rather deceptive use of the language, although it probably makes sense to people who believe that all human intervention in nature is negative.The CRC's statement refers to "original native forest," a somewhat confusing term.Is there actually any "original" forest anywhere?Surely all forests are the result of countless disturbances and evolutions through the ages.CRC uses the term "logged" to include all the forest that has been cleared for deforestation for food production, which of course is not the case.I assume that "severely degraded" means "managed," again a dubious assertion as many managed forests are very high in biodiversity and cannot be called "severely degraded."CRC: Habitat destruction from industrial logging is the leading cause of our current mass species extinction.Response: This may be based on the Worldwide Fund for Nature's media conference held in Geneva on March 1 1,1996 in conjunction with the first meeting of the UN Forum on Forests.They declared that 50000 species are now going extinct each year due to human activity and the main cause is "commercial logging."This story was canied to 100s of millions of people on AP and other international media networks.I have challenged WWF on many occasions to provide a list of some species made extinct by commercial logging or forestry.They have failed to do so.There is no doubt that the main cause of species extinction by human activity are 1) extermination due to over-hunting or eradication, 2) clearance of native ecosystems, often forests, for agriculture, and 3) introduction of exotic predators, in particular rats, cats and foxes introduced to Australia, New Zealand and the other Pacific islands including Hawaii.There is no evidence of significant species extinction caused by forestry.The source of the 50 000 extinctions per year is a computer model created by Ed Wilson at Harvard University.It assumes that there are 50 million species (about 1.6 million are actually identified) and that island biogeogmphy theory applies equally to islands in the sea and islands of forest surrounded by managed landscapes, an incorrect assumption.There is, in fact, no visible evidence of a "mass extinction"; it is a speculation based on bad logic and little science.CRC: At current rates, and [sic] estimated two-thirds of the world's plant and animal species will become extinct by the year 2100.Response: If one accepts that 50 000 species are going extinct each year, then a simple extrapolation would predict that 5 000 000 species will go extinct in the next 100 years.This is about three times the total number of species that are known to exist on Earth.If one assumes that there are actually 50 million species, then 5 million would only be 10% of the total, not twc-thirds.I would be most interested in the arithmetic used by CRC in making this claim.As a point of information, about 50% of the known species are insects and about 50% of those are beetles (Coleoptera).If there are 50 million species (which I thoroughly doubt), it is likely that nearly all the ones we haven't found are small insects.It is unlikely that there are many mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, crustaceans, mollusks, or plants that we have not identified. CRC:The pulp and paper industry is the largest single industrial wood consumer in the US and in the world.Response: The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations statistics indicate that about 55% of global wood consumption is for energy production, 15% for solid wood, and 30% for pulp and paper.Pulp and paper consumption is roughly evenly divided among printing, packaging and sanitary products.In order to improve living standards in developing countries for literacy, protection of goods during transport, and sanitation it will be necessary to increase paper production. CRC:Almost half of all trees logged are turned into paper.Response: I assume CRC is refening to volume of wood rather than a count of individual trees.It is a fact that only about 50% of a sawlog on average can be converted into solid wood products.The other 50%, formerly known of as "sawmill waste," is usually chipped for pulp or burned for energy, both being beneficial uses of a former waste product.FA0 indicates that about 50% of global pulp and paper is from sawmill waste and The Forestry Chronicle Downloaded from pubs.cif-ifc.orgby 34.228.38.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,158
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,529

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0060,004
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1580,066

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,065
Tête enseignante GPT0,410
Écart entre enseignants0,345 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2001
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Forestry ChronicleMême sujetHealth, Medicine and SocietyTravaux en français237 207