MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042662597 · doi:10.5558/tfc84648-5

The Forestry Research Partnership: Developing the partnership

2008· article· en· W2042662597 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
George Bruemme

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts (Québec)Canadian Wood CouncilTembec
FundersNatural Resources CanadaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsGeneral partnershipFacilitatorChristian ministryGovernment (linguistics)ForestryNatural resourceEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementBusinessCommunity forestryPolitical scienceForest managementGeographyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Initiated in 1999 by Tembec Inc., the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Natural Resources Canada, and housed at the Canadian Ecology Centre, the Canadian Ecology Centre – Forestry Research Partnership (referred to as the CECFRP) quickly evolved into an effective and successful catalyst, facilitator, and funding source for integrated forest research and development in Ontario. This paper highlights the development of the partnership and serves as an introduction to a collection of papers that highlight some of the forest science and research projects undertaken by the CECFRP over 7 years. Key words: government-industry partnerships, science to operations continuum, enhanced forest productivity, research Implementation

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)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.006
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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