Analyse d’un changement de régime forestier : le cas du Nouveau-Brunswick des années 1980
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study of the New Brunswick forestry policy system, a system that has been in place for over twenty-five years, the authors examine the government’s rationale for its development. Few studies have been devoted to investigating the factors that have contributed to the implementation of this plan. The research in this article is based on the legislative restrictions imposed on forestry in the province, relevant publications, and interviews with experts in the field. Results indicate that in the early 1980s there was a general dissatisfaction with the system in place. The perception by both the public and legislators was that an eventual shortage of lumber products would occur due to inappropriate cutting practices, wastage, and insufficient silviculture management practices adopted in order to renew the resource. This article also shows how the government shifted at least some of the burden of managing the exploitation of Crown lands to big business, in spite of its maintaining a general preoccupation with long term management. Resume Le regime forestier du Nouveau-Brunswick a deja plus de vingt-cinq ans. Qu’est-ce qui a incite le gouvernement a mettre en place un tel regime? Peu d’etudes insistent sur les raisons de ce nouveau regime. Elles sont a la fois contextuelles et structurelles : la perception d’une eventuelle penurie, par la population autant que par les legislateurs; l’application inappropriee de la coupe a blanc selon certains auteurs, jumelee au ravage de la tordeuse des bourgeons de l’epinette, aux superficies incendiees et au gaspillage de matieres ligneuses en foret; enfin l’insuffisance des pratiques sylvicoles et l’insatisfaction generale envers le regime au tournant des annees 1980. Il faut enfin mettre en evidence le desengagement de l’Etat vis-a-vis de la gestion forestiere, qui a transfere les couts a la grande entreprise malgre une preoccupation generale pour une gestion a long terme. Ainsi, cet article s’appuie sur les resultats d’une etude de cas soutenue par une triangulation methodologique, prenant en compte les hansards legislatifs, les textes de la periode en question et des entrevues avec des intervenants du domaine.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it