MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046390683 · doi:10.5558/tfc86434-4

Maintaining the role of Canada’s forests and peatlands in climate regulation

2010· article· en· W2046390683 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Matthew J. Carlson, Jing Chen, Stewart Elgie, Chris Henschel, Álvaro Montenegro, Nigel T. Roulet, Neal A. Scott, C. Tarnocai, Jeff Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaQueen's UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of VictoriaCanadian Parks and Wilderness SocietyUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaCollège Boréal
FundersIvey Foundation
KeywordsPeatClimate changeEcosystemForest managementForest ecologyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceSustainable forest managementEcosystem managementAgroforestryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s forest and peatland ecosystems are globally significant carbon stores, whose management will be influenced by climate change mitigation policies such as offset systems. To be effective, these policies must be grounded in objective information on the relationships between land use, ecosystem carbon dynamics, and climate. Here, we present the outcomes of a workshop where forest, peatland, and climate experts were tasked with identifying management actions required to maintain the role of Canada’s forest and peatland ecosystems in climate regulation. Reflecting the desire to maintain the carbon storage roles of these ecosystems, a diverse set of management actions is proposed, incorporating conservation, forest management, and forest products. Key words: forests, peatlands, carbon, Canada, climate change, management, forest products, conservation

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations78
Published2010
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207