Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1997 New Society Books published our anthology Ecoforestry: The Art and Science of Sustainable Forest Use.1 Since then, the paradigms of responsible forest use have continued to evolve. The Ecoforestry Movement found common ground in general principles of responsible forest use aiming to keep full functioning forests intact, while selectively removing trees and other material from them. It is now time for a wider and wilder effort to bring wild and tame forests within a more comprehensive vision to save and care for all forests, to restore them where removed, and to sustain cultural and biological diversity to support wild forests. Wild forests are critical to ecological resilience, flourishing cultures, and thriving communities. Wild forest places are unique and of great variety, thus the Wild Forest Movement encourages, respects, honors and supports diversity of cultures with place based wisdom and technologies, instead of a single development model. It supports moving from fossil fuel dependence into the solar age. People everywhere can contribute to solving the three global economic, warming and biodiversity crises. Wild Forests support diverse practices, cultures, worldviews, personal philosophies and lifestyles. Wild Foresters seek perennial knowledge and wisdom to be found in unique forests, places and cultures. Wild Foresting practices involve a wide range of activities and also not acting where silence and contemplation are wise.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".