MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973706309 · doi:10.5558/tfc77301-2

Secondary manufacturing in British Columbia: Structure, significance and trends

2001· article· en· W1973706309 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Bill Wilson, Brad Stennes, Sen Wang, Louise Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Sport Centre PacificUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsProduct (mathematics)BusinessManufacturing sectorProduction (economics)ManufacturingValue (mathematics)Agricultural economicsMarketingEconomicsMathematicsLabour economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similar to many other jurisdictions, British Columbia (BC) is no longer able to expand forest sector production and employment by drawing upon additional timber reserves, so it is seeking to expand value-added (i.e., secondary) manufacturing in forest products. Given the significance of the forest sector to BC, it is important that decision-makers seeking to promote an expansion in secondary manufacturing have accurate sector information. This paper presents the results of a 1998-99 survey of the BC solid wood secondary manufacturing industry. The project gathered operational, employment, production, marketing and financial information on nine defined product groups of business types (BTs) for 1997. The industry information is analyzed to provide a quantitative and qualitative examination on the current structure and significance of the sector, and a discussion on the major challenges confronting secondary manufacturing. An analysis of sector trends is also provided.Sector employment for nine business types totalled 19 490 person years and total sector sales an estimated $3.87 billion (about 22% of total BC forest product sales). Sales for seven business types (excluding panelboards, shakes and shingles) totalled $2.69 billion, up about 40% from 1994 measured in nominal dollars. Direct employment coefficients for a standard volume of timber equivalent are estimated for each of the business types. Key words: forest industry, value-added, employment, markets, policy

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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