MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007965543 · doi:10.5558/tfc77973-6

Resolving contradictions in forestry: Back to science

2001· article· en· W2007965543 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Boris Zeide

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnthropocentrismEcosystemBiodiversityTotal human ecosystemEnvironmental resource managementEcosystem managementBusinessEcoforestryEcosystem approachSustainable developmentEcosystem servicesEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmental planningEcosystem healthForest ecologyEcologyEnvironmental sciencePhilosophyIntact forest landscapeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the very start of our profession, the goal of forestry has been sustained yield, which implies sustainable environment. Although ecosystem management shares this goal, its philosophy and methods are different. A crucial difference is that, unlike traditional forestry, ecosystem management does not know where to manage (we cannot delineate the ecosystem), how to manage (approaches and techniques designed for a highly coordinated whole may be irrelevant to a patchwork of plants and animals), what to manage (since biodiversity remains undefined), and why to manage (ecocentrism is suicidal; our ethics have to be anthropocentric). Key words: delineating ecosystems, ecosystem management, measuring biodiversity, sustainable environment, symptoms and cause of environmental degradation

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.080
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: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.080
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.138
Scholarly communication0.0170.055
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0160.027
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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