The state of the forest: reporting and communicating the state of forests by Montreal Process countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Substantial progress has been made in developing criteria and indicators under the Montreal Process, but difficulties have been encountered when reporting at a country level. Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Russia and the United States follow the criteria and indicators without change, while Australia and Canada use modified versions. Three countries (Australia, Canada and Korea) report on a reduced number of indicators. Extensive consultation with local-level governments and communities took place in Australia and the USA, resulting in increased harmonisation with local-level reporting. Reports have been produced for two main purposes: to fulfil the reporting obligations to the Montreal Process and to communicate the status of forests to a country's citizens, thereby engaging them in the process of sustainable forest management. This paper examines how well these two stated purposes have been achieved. Our research suggests that despite many seemingly successful initiatives, there is considerable room for improvement. Current reporting practices, if not corrected, will create difficulties in communicating progress in sustainable forest management amongst countries.
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 | 0.065 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".