MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1824542205 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0516

On the economics of Norway spruce stands and carbon storage

2013· article· en· W1824542205 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sami Niinimäki, Olli Tahvonen, Annikki Mäkelä, Tapio Linkosalo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThinningGreenhouse gasCarbon fibersPicea abiesSubsidyCarbon sequestrationEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsForestryAgroforestryAgricultural economicsEconomicsMathematicsEcologyGeographyBiologyCarbon dioxide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We combine a process-based growth model for even-aged Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.) with economics and optimization. Carbon storage is subsidized based on stand growth and product decay. We include detailed optimized thinnings and timber quality features and present cost functions for stand-level CO 2 storage. In contrast to earlier studies, our results suggest that changing thinning strategies and postponing thinnings are at least as important as lengthening the rotation period when considering economically efficient carbon storage. The role of thinning is most important in less fertile sites. Contrary to the generic Faustmann model, a higher interest rate increases rotation length on our fertile site. Including carbon release from decaying timber products as reductions from carbon subsidies only has minor effects on optimal solutions. The fertile site stores more discounted carbon. However, with a 1% interest rate, the less fertile site is cost-efficient up to 13 CO 2 t·ha −1 , and with a 3% interest rate, it is cost-efficient up to 14 CO 2 t·ha −1 . After these points, carbon storage on the fertile site becomes cheaper. The economic costs of carbon storage suggest that it is optimal to apply carbon storage in Norway spruce forests to meet greenhouse gas reduction commitments.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207