Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wide-ranging changes in forest tenures have occurred globally in recent decades, and the changes in developed countries and transition economies have been dominated by market forces. Market-based forest tenure changes are discussed in 4 categories: (i) forest management by a state-owned company (Sweden); (ii) commercialization, corporatization, and privatization of plantations (New Zealand, South Africa and Australia); (iii) creation of forest enterprises within state forestry agencies (the United Kingdom, Germany, and transition economies); and (iv) changes in forest tenures in economies in transition. The global tenure changes provide no empirical evidence in support of any specific form of tenure. I suggest 9 guiding principles, instead of a specific type of tenure, for forest tenure reform in Canada. Forest reforms should be organized: (i) keeping the future of forestry in perspective; (ii) for multiple attributes of forests; (iii) to provide flexibility, diversity, and adaptiveness; (iv) to foster forest industry competitiveness; (v) for economically optimal timber supply; (vi) to maximize the value of harvested timber; (vii) to recognize and deal with the non-separation of forest management and timber allocation and harvest; (viii) to select an appropriate organizational form, such as state business enterprise, corporation, or state-owned company, based on a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis; and (ix) to seek inputs from an expert group–without direct stakeholders. Key words: Australia, Canada, commercialization, corporatization, forest enterprise, forest tenure, Germany, New Zealand, privatization, South Africa, Sweden, transition economies, United Kingdom
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".