Comparative analysis of efficiency and productivity growth in Canadian regional boreal logging industries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian boreal logging industry has attracted little or no attention from economic researchers in spite of its importance for the competitiveness and long-term survival of other forest-based industries. This article uses a panel data set covering the period from 1977 to 1995 to analyze technical efficiency, technical change, and total factor productivity growth in the logging industries for six boreal provinces. The production technology is represented using a data envelopment analysis model. A transitive measure of productivity change that combines technical progress and changes in the degree of productive efficiency is computed. The empirical investigation reveals that logging activities in the boreal region are characterized by substantial efficiency differentials among the regions. Results from a Tobit analysis of efficiency differentials indicate that forest resource characteristics such as forest density and proportion of hardwood production were found to have positive effects. There was also evidence of significant positive scale effects. Engineering construction per area seems to be negatively related to efficiency. Total factor productivity in the boreal logging industry progressed at an average annual rate of 1.56%.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it