Changes in walnut and other hardwood markets: 1990-2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After a decade of record demand in the 1990s, production and price of hardwood lumber declined moderately between 1999 and 2005 and then plummeted between 2005 and 2009. The decline in hardwood lumber price affected all species. However, walnut was the last species to decline in price, starting in 2007, and has had the largest price increase since hitting its low point in early 2010. The most obvious factor affecting walnut lumber price is the export market. As exports of walnut lumber declined in the 1990s, walnut lumber price was surpassed by that of black cherry and hard maple. As export and domestic demand for these species began to decline in the 2000s, walnut re-emerged as the highest priced U.S. species. While lumber exports have a considerable impact on lumber price, walnut log exports appear to have even a greater impact on saw log and veneer log prices. Walnut products exported to China increased in the late 1990s, rising from less than $0.2 million in 1996 to more than $10.5 million in 2000. By 2007, China had become the largest export market for walnut logs and Canada had become the largest international market for walnut lumber and veneer. Exports will remain an important aspect of the walnut market if the value of the dollar continues to decrease and demand by China and other countries continues to increase.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".