MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030723555 · doi:10.5558/tfc85521-4

The Sustainable Forest Management Network (1995–2009): An overview of its organizational history and perceived legacies

2009· article· en· W2030723555 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Nicole Klenk, Gordon M. Hickey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipScope (computer science)Context (archaeology)ExcellenceEnvironmental resource managementBusinessOrganizational structureKnowledge managementPublic relationsPolitical scienceGeographyManagementComputer scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the Sustainable Forest Management Network draws to a close, it is timely to take stock of this distinct research organization in the Canadian forest sector. This paper offers an overview of the SFM Network’s organizational history and perceived legacies. The paper’s scope includes the Network’s institutional/policy context, its organizational structure, and its partnership evolution over time. It then presents some of the Network’s most important outputs and outcomes and reports perceived legacies drawn from interviews with individuals who have been heavily involved in the evolution of the SFM Network. Key words: knowledge network, cross-sector partnerships, collaboration, forest history, networks of centres of excellence

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.711

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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