MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022991006 · doi:10.5558/tfc78648-5

The International Model Forest Network (IMFN): Elements of Success

2002· article· en· W2022991006 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Peter Besseau, Kafui Dansou, Frederick Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
FundersNatural Resources CanadaForeign Affairs and International Trade CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceCanadian Forest ServiceInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsMilestoneSummitLatin AmericansSuccessor cardinalSustainable developmentGeographyCitizen journalismPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementRegional scienceEnvironmental planningPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The International Model Forest Network (IMFN) was announced by Canada at the Rio (UNCED) Summit ten years ago to pilot outside of Canada a promising participatory field-level approach to sustainable forest management then being developed in Canada through its national model forest network. The IMFN has since grown from three sites in two countries (outside of Canada) in 1994 to 19 sites in 11 countries, in addition to numerous additional sites proposed and at early stages of development. Now with the successor event to Rio, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, about to take place in Johannesburg, South Africa, there is an appropriate milestone at which to pause and consider its evolution and growth. Among the elements of success attributed to the growth of the network the authors consider the nature of the approach itself as being an innovative re-formulation of widely shared management values, its flexibility across borders and ecosystems, and the support provided in its development by the Canadian Model Forest Network and other domestic and international partners. The article looks at similarities and differences between the international and Canadian applications of this approach and describes some of the lessons learned and difficulties met in applying the approach internationally. Key words: IMFNS, CMFN, International, Networking, Asia, Latin America

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.457
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.240
Teacher spread0.223 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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