MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1965644120 · doi:10.5558/tfc79936-5

Transborder interactions in the sawmill industry of Chaudière-Appalaches, Québec: A survey analysis

2003· article· en· W1965644120 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Debra Straussfogel, Theodore E. Howard, Sylvain Masse, Difei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNew Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)BusinessResource (disambiguation)Forest productKey (lock)EconomyIndustrial organizationForestryGeographyEconomicsForest managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this mail survey of sawmills in the Chaudière-Appalaches region of southern Québec were (1) to establish the level of transborder interaction of these sawmills, with regard to wood sources and final markets; (2) to discover their perceptions of local versus international economic and business factors with regard to their business success; and (3) to examine the role and importance of the size of the sawmills in Chaudière-Appalaches relative to the nature of their engagement in either raw material import from or finished product export to the US. Our results demonstrate that a transborder forest economy exists and that the conception of "local" in transboundary regions must be flexible enough to permit resource management strategies, that, to some extent, ignore national boundaries. Key words: sawmill industry, transborder interaction, Chaudière-Appalaches, Québec, Northern New England

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry Chronicle→Same topicForest Management and Policy→French-language works237,207→