MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Forest Farming Practices

2009· book-chapter· en· W1153621456 on OpenAlexaffabout
James L. Chamberlain, D. Mitchell, Tim Brigham, Tom Hobby, Lisa Zabek, Jeanine M. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueASSA, CSSA and SSSA · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGinkgo biloba and Cashew Applications
Canadian institutionsRoyal Roads University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureCommodityRevenueGeographyAgroforestryVariety (cybernetics)BusinessAgricultural economicsEconomicsArchaeologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter presents historical and modern perspectives, as well as examples of contemporary practices, to provide the reader an overview of the abundant opportunities in forest farming. Most of the discussion focuses on the Southern United States and Western Canada (i.e., British Columbia). These are illustrative of the many opportunities that exist, but do not cover other regions of North America (Northeastern and Southwestern United States, Eastern Canada, or Mexico), where there are also examples of dynamic and exciting forest farming. The chapter also describes different approaches to generating revenue from forest farming products and services. There are a wide variety of potential products that can be marketed and sold as commodities from forest farms. Medicinal herbs, edible products (e.g., mushrooms, berries), decorative greenery (Christmas greens and others), and live plants are just a few examples of products that can be sold into commodity or raw material markets.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.008

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASSA, CSSA and SSSASame topicGinkgo biloba and Cashew ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207