MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989880256 · doi:10.5558/tfc79106-1

Canada's privately owned forest lands: Their management and economic importance

2003· article· en· W1989880256 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Tony Rotherham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsForest managementProductivityDeciduousBusinessLand tenureGeographyProduction (economics)Land areaAgroforestryAgricultural economicsForestryEnvironmental protectionEconomic growthAgricultural scienceEconomicsAgricultureEcologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada has the third largest area of forest in the world after Russia and Brazil. About 89% is in public ownership; 11%, or 23 million ha, is privately owned. The comparatively small area of forest in private ownership has been largely overlooked. If it were a national forest, it would be the 11th largest in the world, between Japan and Finland, with the 8th largest production of industrial roundwood, between Finland and Germany. Canada's privately owned forest lands produce 19% of our wood supply, some 36 million m3 per year. There are about 425 000 owners with an average of 45 ha each. Their objectives vary greatly. They own a high percentage of the Deciduous, Great Lakes-St. Lawrence and Acadian Forest Regions. These forests are very important environmental, economic and social resources. We should understand their value better and set in place management programs to ensure their health and productivity. Landowner's rights and management objectives must be respected. Key words: private forest land, Canada, wood production, area of forest, management programs

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2003
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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