Factors Influencing Changes in U.S. Hardwood Log and Lumber Exports from 1990 to 2011
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Domestic consumption of hardwood products in the United States since 2000 has trended downward, making exports the single most important market for higher grade hardwood lumber and a major market for higher value hardwood logs. Between 1990 and 2011, hardwood lumber exports increased by 46%. During most of this period, Canada was the largest export market for U.S. lumber, but in 2009 China/Hong Kong became the most important market. Nearly 60% of the lumber exported in 1990 was red or white oak, but the proportion of exports of these species had decreased to 38% by 2011. By contrast, exports of yellow-poplar lumber increased by 381% over this period. The volume of hardwood logs exported grew by 62% between 1990 and 2011, and Canada remained the largest customer. Several factors can affect the export of hardwood lumber and logs. In the 1990s, changes in exchange rates and economic activity in importing countries could be linked with changes in lumber and log exports. Since 2000, China, Vietnam, and other East Asian furniture-producing countries have become important export markets as overseas manufacturers seek lumber of species familiar to U.S. consumers. Conversely, the large decrease in hardwood lumber and log exports to Canada between 2006 and 2009 coincides with a similar decrease in wood furniture imports from Canada.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".