MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W120576834

Skötsel av torvmarksskogar - vad vet egentligen Västerbottens skogsbolag?

2012· article· en· W120576834 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frida Edh, Caroline Haglund

Bibliographic record

VenueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeatDitchQuarter (Canadian coin)CertificationForestryDrainageForest managementGeographyEnvironmental resource managementBusinessEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceEcologyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About a quarter of the Swedish land area is covered with shallow or thick peat. There is a potential to increase forest production in Sweden with almost 2 million m3/year in selected peatlands with low conservation values. This increase can be accomplished by drainage, complementary drainage, ditch maintenance operations and fertilization. The purpose of this study was to determine the level of knowledge regarding the management of forests on peatlands and was restricted to selected forest companies in Västerbotten County, with offices in Umeå. Three companies were chosen, SCA, Holmen and Norra Skogsägarna. Representatives from these companies were interviewed and asked to fill in a questionnaire regarding the management of peatland forests. The questionnaire was tested on beforehand in a pilot study with kind cooperation of other SLU students. The answers to the questions were recorded anonymously as Företag 1, 2 and 3 (F1, F2 and F3, subjected randomly). The number of correct answers was relatively low compared to the pilot study. F1 and F3 had 3 and F2 had 2 out of 9 correct answers, respectively. The conclusion of the study was that the knowledge among the professionals is partially deficient and that a deeper understanding is needed. In the current situation the management of peatland forests is limited due to conservation and certification. Should nature conservation and certification rules be eased and site so that the most suitable peatlands can be utilized, a deeper knowledge on peatland forestry and it’s potential would be required.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0710.025

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton)Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207