MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967307603 · doi:10.5558/tfc83651-5

The National Forest Strategy in comparative perspective

2007· article· en· W1967307603 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jeremy Rayner, Michael Howlett

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSophisticationNational forestConsolidation (business)Corporate governanceInternationalizationBusinessCertified woodEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceForest managementForestryGeographyEconomicsInternational tradeFinanceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper evaluates the ability of the National Forest Strategy to meet the challenges of a newly internationalized forest policy environment while preserving the strengths of a decentralized national system of forest policy formulation and implementation. It outlines the challenges to forest governance in Canada in the 21st century, notably the globalized marketplace and the consolidation, increasing sophistication and international linkages of new actors in forest policymaking. Canada's NFS is compared with the development of National Forest Programs in Europe in order to assess Canada's progress in these areas compared to that of other jurisdictions. Key words: forest policy, forest governance, National Forest Strategy, National Forest Programs, internationalization

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207