MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Does a Crisis Matter? Forest Policy Responses to the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic in British Columbia

2007· article· en· W1965587169 on OpenAlex
Harry W. Nelson

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForesterPolitical sciencePolitical capitalPublic policyGovernment (linguistics)Order (exchange)PoliticsPublic administrationGeographyEconomyForestryBusinessEconomicsFinanceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

“[a]n epidemic of catastrophic proportions”⋖Larry Pedersen, Chief Forester in 2003, in describing the impact of the outbreak. What factors are responsible for the introduction of new policies (especially those involving substantive change) is a phenomenon that is still poorly understood. Researchers have identified policy windows where a confluence of events, such as a change in government, the emergence of a new issue, and ongoing policy processes, come together to create the opportunity for new policy development. Natural disasters can open such policy windows by drawing attention to an issue and mobilizing political will. Yet at the same time, even if policy windows do open, they may not result in effective policy development. The institutional setting in which such policies are developed also plays a key role. In the case of the Canadian forest sector, the combination of public resources and private capital make policy development especially challenging. Although the scale of the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic in British Columbia is unprecedented, and will change the nature of the forest resource (and by extension the industry and communities that rely upon it), the policy response has been limited to short‐term measures. Although some policy reform was introduced, policy makers have yet to address the question of whether more fundamental changes are required in order to address the full consequences of the epidemic. La détermination des facteurs responsables de l’introduction de nouvelles politiques (particulièrement celles qui comportent des changements substantiels) demeurent un phénomène mal compris. Des chercheurs ont déterminé des fenêtres d’opportunité politique où divers événements, tels qu’un changement de gouvernement, l’émergence d’une nouvelle préoccupation et des processus politiques continus, convergent pour créer l’occasion d’élaborer de nouvelles politiques. Les catastrophes naturelles peuvent créer ces fenêtres d’opportunité politique en attirant l’attention sur une préoccupation et en mobilisant la volonté politique. Pourtant, même si des fenêtres d’opportunité politique s’ouvrent, elles peuvent ne pas se solder par l’élaboration de politiques efficaces. Le cadre institutionnel dans lequel ces politiques sont élaborées joue aussi un rôle important. Dans le cas du secteur forestier canadien, la combinaison de ressources publiques et de capitaux privés rend l’élaboration de politiques particulièrement délicate. Bien que l’étendue de l’épidémie de dendroctone du pin ponderosa en Colombie‐Britannique soit sans précédent et modifiera la nature de la ressource forestière (et par extension, l’industrie et les collectivités qui en dépendent), la réaction politique s’est limitée à des mesures à court terme. Malgré une certaine réforme des politiques, les décideurs doivent s’interroger sur la nécessité d’apporter ou non des changements fondamentaux supplémentaires pour surmonter les conséquences de l’épidémie.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.204 · 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