MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056005144 · doi:10.5558/tfc77325-2

Wood procurement policy: An analysis of critical issues and stakeholders

2001· article· en· W2056005144 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gary Bull, S. Nilsson, Julian Williams, Ewald Rametsteiner, Tom Hammett, Warren Mabee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementBusinessContext (archaeology)CommitTerminologyEnvironmental resource managementSustainable forest managementForest managementEnvironmental planningMarketingForestryEconomicsComputer scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last two decades, the ecological, cultural and social values of forests have received stronger priority by society. To address the changes in values in a forest products context, major wood and non-wood retailers are being asked to develop a wood procurement policy which defines the sources from which a company or organization will or will not obtain the wood or wood products it requires. Many interest groups are actively advising companies and organizations that are currently developing wood procurement policies, and continue to urge other retailers to commit to developing such policies. However, there is a welter of inconsistent and confusing wood procurement policy terminology that has been created, and is unlikely to successfully advance the cause of sustainable forest management in the medium and long term, at least in North America. In many cases, the broader objectives of the policies are not clear and this, as well as the lack of discussion between all relevant parties, is likely to create difficulties in policy implementation and in consumer acceptance. This paper describes and analyzes the current and emerging stakeholders and the processes that are necessary for successful wood procurement policy implementation – setting objectives, developing terms and definitions, identifying indicators, linking with data available and verifying data. Particular attention is given to exploring the problems with existing terms and definitions. We conclude that definitions and data collection standards need clarification, regional differences in forests need to be recognized, methods for data validation developed, and target deadlines for full implementation of a wood procurement policy possibly extended. The next steps could be a series of meetings between key stakeholders, including the wood and non-wood industries, forest products industry, certifying and standard-setting bodies, and ENGOs. These meetings are needed to advance the discussion on definitions, standards, and data to use with the goal of effectively connecting wood procurement policy with sustainable forest management. Key words: policy, forest, wood procurement, definitions

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)0.000
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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations11
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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