Les politiques forestières du Québec et le commerce « loyal » : le différend sur le bois d’œuvre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les droits de coupe pour les arbres des forêts publiques sont déterminés au Québec à partir des prix du bois sur le marché privé. Dans le cadre du différend sur le bois d’œuvre avec les États-Unis, si le département américain du Commerce considérait en 1992 que ce marché était concurrentiel, et pouvait donc servir de base de référence, il concluait différemment en 2002. Or, il est difficile de démontrer que le régime forestier québécois satisfait ou non effectivement à des conditions « loyales » d’échanges, sur lesquelles les États-Unis insistent. Même si le nouveau régime forestier annoncé par le gouvernement du Québec en 2008 prévoit la mise aux enchères d’une part significative du bois public, ce régime ne paraît guère en mesure de répondre aux exigences américaines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".