MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1827428878 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2012-0139

How to cope with changing demand conditions — The Swedish forest sector as a case study: an analysis of major drivers of change in the use of wood resources

2013· article· en· W1827428878 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ragnar Jonsson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSkogforskStiftelsen för Miljöstrategisk Forskning
KeywordsForest productForest managementNatural resource economicsEuropean unionBiomass (ecology)Resource (disambiguation)Wood processingSupply and demandProduct (mathematics)BusinessRenewable energyRenewable resourceWood productionEcosystem servicesEconometric modelConsumption (sociology)EconomicsAgroforestryForestryEnvironmental scienceEcosystemEcologyGeographyInternational trade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Promotion of renewable energy sources in Europe is foreseen to result in a dramatic increase in the demand for woody biomass. This paper assesses whether wood resources in the European Union (EU) will support future demand. Possible implications for countries with ample forest resources and a well-developed forest industry, such as Sweden, of an expected mounting demand pressure are discussed. Other drivers of change in global wood product markets posing challenges for the forest sector in general are also addressed. These drivers are reviewed and, together with the results from the EUwood project and econometric wood market models, analyzed as to their impacts on the Swedish forest sector. Demand is foreseen to vastly exceed the potential supply of woody biomass in Europe, putting a tremendous pressure on the Swedish forest resource and necessitating trade-offs between different ecosystem services. Further, projections suggest that Sweden will decrease in importance in production as well as consumption terms for all wood products.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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