MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024710442 · doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0492-0

Social Network Analysis of Multi-level Linkages: A Swedish Case Study on Northern Forest-Based Sectors

2014· article· en· W2024710442 on OpenAlexaff
E. Carina H. Keskitalo, Julia Baird, Emmeline Laszlo Ambjörnsson, Ryan Plummer

Bibliographic record

VenueAMBIO · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsBridge (graph theory)Corporate governanceResource (disambiguation)GeographyEconomic geographyRegional scienceComparative caseBusinessPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest use in Northern Sweden is being influenced both by global trends and local situations. This results in interactions between numerous groups that may impact local forest governance. Social network analysis can here provide insight into the total pattern of positive, negative, and cross-level interactions within user group community structure (within and among groups). This study analyses interactions within selected renewable resource sectors in two northern Swedish municipalities, both with regard to whether they are positive, neutral, or negative, as well as with regard to how local actors relate to actors across levels, e.g., with regional, national, and international actors. The study illustrates that many interactions both within and outside a given sector are seen as neutral or positive, and that considerable interaction and impact are defined as national and in some cases even international. It also indicates that the impact of Sweden's only existing Model Forest may to some extent constitute a bridge between different sectors and levels, in comparison with the interactions between sectors in a municipality where such a cooperation mechanism does not exist.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAMBIOSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207