MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034971690 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0552

Economics of harvesting boreal uneven-aged mixed-species forests

2015· article· en· W2034971690 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janne Rämö, Olli Tahvonen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulpwoodStumpageScots pinePicea abiesTaigaBetula pendulaForestryBorealBetula pubescensStand developmentGeographyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsEcologyPinus <genus>AgroforestryBotanyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subject of this study is the economics of harvesting boreal uneven-aged mixed-species forests consisting of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), birch (Betula pendula Roth and B. pubescens Ehrh.), and other broadleaves. The analysis is based on an economic description of uneven-aged forestry, applying a size-structured model. The optimization problem is solved in its general dynamic form using gradient-based interior point methods. When volume yield is maximized, the optimal steady state is a nearly pure Norway spruce stand at all site types, producing slightly higher yields than single-species stands. After including sawlog and pulpwood prices, the net present value of stumpage revenues is maximized using 1%, 3%, and 5% interest rates and a 15-year harvesting interval. At less productive sites, the stands are nearly pure Norway spruce stands, regardless of the interest rate. At more productive sites, increasing the interest rate increases the species diversity, with optimal steady states consisting of both Norway spruce and birch. In some cases, rather small changes in relative prices change the optimal steady state into a birch-dominated stand. Optimal solutions converge to the same steady-state solutions, independent of the initial stand state. If other broadleaves without commercial value are not harvested, they will eventually dominate the stand.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.694
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207