MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1987087540 · doi:10.5558/tfc83658-5

A continental forest policy for North America?

2007· article· en· W1987087540 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
W. L. Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsSoftwoodForest managementNature ConservationBusinessForestryNatural resource economicsAgroforestryGeographyEconomicsEcologyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringPulp and paper industry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in the global forest economy along with moves in the priorities in the management of American federal forests may have created a timber supply condition that has hampered trade relations with Canada over softwood lumber. Concurrently, agents of natural disturbance are impacting significant areas of North American timberlands. Current institutional arrangements, including those initiated by the Softwood Lumber Export Charge Act of 2006,may be encouraging less than optimal cooperation. A non-profit, partially governmental collaborative approach termed the continental forestry chamber is proposed as an alternative arrangement in resolving forest conservation, management and trade issues in North America. Key words: conservation, management, softwood lumber, deliberative democracy

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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2007
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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