MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482150080 · doi:10.22230/jem.2006v7n1a506

Arrow IFPA Series: Note 7 of 8: Criterion 4: Timber economic benefits

2006· article· en· W1482150080 on OpenAlexaff
John D. Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsKalesnikoff Lumber (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForest managementStock (firearms)Sustainable forest managementEnvironmental resource managementAsset (computer security)BusinessEnvironmental economicsEconomicsComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceEngineeringAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This extension note is the seventh in a series of eight that describes a set of tools and processes developed to support sustainable forest management planning and its pilot application in the Arrow Timber Supply Area. It demonstrates how forest-level modelling can be used to forecast criteria and indicators of timber economic benefits and how sensitive these indicators are to changes in the constraints affecting the timber harvesting land base and harvest practices. In an economic sense, forests are assets with the potential to generate wealth through a sustainable flow of benefits. Managing this asset to maximize economic returns and to minimize the risk of loss to natural disturbances are important objectives. This extension note develops these concepts and identifies indicators that can measure economic performance. A harvest simulation model is used to forecast harvest volume, growing stock, and delivered wood cost for the Sustainable Forest Management Pilot Basecase Analysis. A sensitivity analysis shows how harvest volume changes as management assumptions change. Harvest simulation models can help to identify strategic trade-offs between value and risk.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.887

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207