MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014938714 · doi:10.5558/tfc78643-5

A critical assessment of ten years of on-the-ground sustainable forestry in eastern Ontario s settled landscape

2002· article· en· W2014938714 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Elizabeth Holmes, Henry F. Lickers, Brian Barkley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInvertebrate Taxonomy and Ecology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceCanadian Forest ServiceGovernment of CanadaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsForestryContext (archaeology)GeographyCommunity forestryEnvironmental planningSustainable developmentEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental protectionPolitical scienceForest managementEnvironmental scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 10 years, the Eastern Ontario Model Forest has been developed by partners and the local community as a means of involving a large and varied group of people in achieving sustainable forestry. In this settled landscape, with over one million residents and 88% private land ownership, involvement of local communities is a given. This critical assessment looks at outstanding issues, dynamics of the operating environment, key accomplishments and unexpected outcomes that have resulted, all in the context of Naturalized Knowledge Systems. Key words: Sustainable forestry, partnerships, criteria and indicators, state of the forest reporting, First Nations Forestry, naturalized knowledge systems, eastern Ontario

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2002
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicInvertebrate Taxonomy and EcologyFrench-language works237,207