MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Forest Sector Dependence and Community Well‐being: A Structural Equation Model for New Brunswick and British Columbia*

2003· article· en· W2044323830 on OpenAlexaffabout
John R. Parkins, Richard C. Stedman, Thomas M. Beckley

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Sociology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural equation modelingPovertyGeographyCensusEconomicsSociologyEconomic growthDemographyStatisticsMathematicsPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractRural sociologists have a lengthy history of examining the relationship between natural resource dependence and community well‐being. This paper contributes to the understanding of this relationship in several ways. First, census data were used to describe forest sector dependence in two Canadian provinces where levels of dependence were much higher than those commonly found in the United States. Second, instead of linear regression analysis, a structural equation model was used to provide estimates for three indicators of well‐being (income, poverty, and inmigration) within a single model and then the model was tested for overall suitability. Using market segmentation theory, this paper shows that forest dependence and well‐being in New Brunswick is more consistent with many places in the United States where the pulp and paper industry alone is positively associated with well‐being indicators. In contrast, pulp and paper, logging, and lumber sectors in British Columbia are positively associated with well‐being. The model also reveals less transience in forestry towns than was previously assumed. These findings are discussed along with estimated effects between indictors of community well‐being.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural SociologySame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207