MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045519327 · doi:10.1139/x01-044

Substitution in global wood imports in the 1990s

2001· article· en· W2045519327 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jussi Uusivuori, Jari Kuuluvainen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsSubstitution (logic)EconomicsRaw materialPanel dataConsumption (sociology)Production (economics)EstimationAgricultural economicsEconometricsNatural resource economicsMicroeconomicsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper substitution between the main categories of imported wood and between imported and domestic wood raw material is studied empirically using a cost-function approach and a panel data set of the world's 36 most important wood-importing countries in 1990–1997. A subcost function for the optimal mix of different timber inputs and estimable cost share functions are derived. The results suggest that as industrial consumption of wood continues to grow, international trade becomes an increasingly important source of wood for the world's forest industries. Cross-price elasticities of derived demand based on maximum-likelihood estimation show that substitution between different categories of imported wood in world imports is fairly low. By contrast, substitution between imported wood and domestically produced wood is higher. Long-run own-price and cross-price elasticities are larger in absolute terms than short-run elasticities. Because of fairly strong substitutability between domestic and imported wood in the long run, the effects of national forest conservation may be transferred globally via international trade.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.281 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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