MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008022306 · doi:10.5558/tfc80672-6

CERTFOR: A new sustainable forestry management standard for Chile's forest plantations

2004· article· en· W2008022306 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Francis Dubé, G. Gignac, Marta Isabel Miranda, Edilaine Andrade Melo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impact
Canadian institutionsMPB Technologies & Communications (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable forest managementCertificationForest managementForestryCertified woodBusinessPinus radiataWoodlandStakeholderAuditEucalyptusAgroforestryEnvironmental protectionGeographyEnvironmental scienceAccountingEconomicsEcologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This technical paper reviews CERTFOR, the Chilean initiative for sustainable plantation forestry. Since its release in January 2002, 1.5 million ha of Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus species plantations have been certified as well managed, Forestal Arauco S.A. becoming the first company and major player with nearly 35% of total planted woodlands in Chile. QMI conducted the audits using a multidisciplinary international team. The structure of the standard includes 9 principles, 43 criteria and 190 indicators. In early 2004, the PEFC started a public consultation period for the assessment of CERTFOR. Once completed, it will be the first non-European standard to be recognized by PEFC. Key words: Arauco, certified forest plantations, CERTFOR, PEFC, QMI, stakeholder consultation, sustainable forest management practices

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicGlobal trade, sustainability, and social impactFrench-language works237,207