MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051085571 · doi:10.5558/tfc79860-5

The bioeconomy and the forestry sector: Changing markets and new opportunities

2003· article· en· W2051085571 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Luc Duchesne, Suzanne Wetzel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioproductsGreenhouse gasNatural resource economicsBusinessBiomass (ecology)Fossil fuelBiofuelEconomicsEngineeringWaste managementEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bioeconomy is expected to replace the current information economy and will depend heavily on the manufacturing and trade of bioproducts, which are all commodities generated by living organisms through the use of technology and biotechnology, as well as non-timber forest products. In Canada alone, markets for bioproducts are in excess of $100 billion annually. The bioeconomy should impact most of Canada's economic sectors: energy and transportation, food and agro-food, pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals, forestry, materials and manufacturing, waste management and a large variety of consumer goods. The bioeconomy holds promises to wean the Canadian economy from its dependence on fossil fuels as a primary source of energy as well as platform chemicals in materials and manufacturing, while meeting the Kyoto commitments on greenhouse gas reductions. Finally, the bioeconomy will reduce the environmental impact of economic growth by increasing the use of industrial and urban wastes and developing goods that are biodegradable. Key words: NTFP, ecology, forest economics, biomass, energy, pharmaceuticals, forest policies, agroforestry

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.179 · 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
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

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicBioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207