Bibliographic record
Abstract
The debate surrounding Tasmania’s old-growth forests in 2004 represents a good example of a situation where, despite both sides of a highly polarized policy field drawing on science to support their world view (to varying degrees), little common ground was found to enable robust and shared discussions that were required to resolve the conflict and collectively define a sustainable future for Tasmania’s old-growth forests. This paper reviews the scientific and policy-related literature on old-growth eucalypt forests and outlines recent developments in old-growth forest policy in Tasmania. It describes the highly polarized public policy debate surrounding Tasmania’s old-growth forests in the lead up to the 2004 Federal election, and considers the challenges posed by polarized democratic debate when developing public policy. It then considers the different dimensions of forest-related scientific knowledge and discusses the role of science in informing and resolving the polarized old growth debate in Tasmania. Key words: Sustainable forest management, strategy, politics, research, government, Australia
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".