Valoración económica del bosque nativo afectado por la introducción del castor americano en Tierra del Fuego
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How much is the economic value of native forest affected by the North American beaver in Tierra del Fuego?That was the question which led to determine the value given by society to forest resources affected by the introduction of the North American (or Canadian) beaver in conservation areas in Tierra del Fuego Province.The contingent valuation technique was applied and 396 persons of the economically active population from Punta Arenas and Porvenir were examined.This research found that 18.7 % of the value placed on these resources is an option value, 48.8 % corresponds to a heritage value, 17.1 % falls on the existence value and 15.5 % is attributed to their direct and indirect use values; thus, bringing its total valuation to $ 4,864,507.534(Chilean pesos, 2011) per year.Key words: contingent valuation, compensating variation criterion, direct use value, indirect use value, non-use value.RESUMEN ¿Cuál es el valor económico del bosque nativo afectado por la introducción del castor americano en Tierra del Fuego?Con tal planteamiento se determinó el valor otorgado por la sociedad, a los recursos forestales afectados por la introducción del castor americano (Castor canadensis), localizados en la provincia de Tierra del Fuego (Chile).Se utilizó como método la técnica de valoración contingente, entrevistando a 396 personas económicamente activas de las ciudades de Porvenir y Punta Arenas.De la investigación realizada, se constató que el 18,66 % del valor otorgado a estos recursos constituye un valor de opción, el 48,76 % corresponde a un valor de herencia, el 17,11 % recae sobre el valor de existencia y el 15,48 %, se atribuye al valor de su uso directo e indirecto, ascendiendo su valoración total a US$ 7.282.197($ 4.864.507.534;pesos de 2011) por año.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".