MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992070934 · doi:10.5558/tfc791060-6

CSA's SFM Program: Market access through sustainable forest management

2003· article· en· W1992070934 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Teresa M Borgiel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsMondelēz International (Canada)Canadian Standards Association
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCertified woodCertificationSustainable forest managementBusinessProcurementForest managementForest productProduct (mathematics)Environmental resource managementProduct certificationSustainable managementForestrySustainabilityMarketingGeographyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsManagementEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A growing number of national and international buyers are now specifying "certified" forest products in their procurement policies. In response, the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) has worked with a diverse range of stakeholders interested in Sustainable Forest Management in Canada to develop CSA's Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) Program. CSA's SFM Program consists of four distinct, yet inter-related components: CAN/CSA Z809, Canada's National Standard for Sustainable Forest Management; chain of custody for forest products; product marking with CSA International's SFM Mark; and, CSA International's Forest Products Group. When these components are combined they provide a comprehensive, credible, and affordable forest certification and product-marking program. The list of organizations accepting forest products certified through the CSA SFM Program is growing within Canada, the United States and abroad. Key words: Canadian Standards Association (CSA), forest certification, certified forest products, chain of custody, product marking, criteria and indicators.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.503
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0740.011

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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