MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052191475 · doi:10.5558/tfc85440-3

The “emulation of natural disturbance” (END) management approach in Canadian forestry: A critical evaluation

2009· article· en· W2052191475 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Nicole Klenk, Gary Bull, James I. MacLellan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)EmulationEnvironmental resource managementForest managementAdaptive managementNatural (archaeology)Climate changeNaturalismBiodiversityForesterForestryGeographyEcologyEnvironmental sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The “emulation of natural disturbance” (END) is an ambiguous forest management approach that embodies an environmental ethic of “following nature” and the values associated with the nature/culture dichotomy. Given climate change projections, the emulation of natural disturbance or any approach that commits itself to reproducing a snapshot of the past history and evolution of forests may not be appropriate over large areas of the forested landscape. The adoption of a naturalistic forest management approach may appear to make sense for biodiversity conservation, but such an approach may not be adaptive in a rapidly changing climate. Rather than aiming to “follow nature,” Canadian forestry should strive to be innovative in its efforts to manage its forests. Key words: emulation of natural disturbance, TRIAD, environmental ethics, naturalistic forest management, climate change, adaptation

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.581
Threshold uncertainty score0.974

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207