Recent forest expansion in Thailand: a methodological artifact?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several Asian developing countries recently reported a net increase in forest cover. In Thailand, such reports have been vehemently rejected by forest officials, researchers, politicians, and international organizations alike. According to the dominant interpretation, the apparent forest regrowth derives from a methodological artifact. While the determination of the true evolution of forest cover has important implications, this interpretation has never been subject to scrutiny. This article presents a broad range of data and analyses suggesting important flaws in this interpretation. Based notably on (1) a critical review of available forest statistics and the methodology used to produce these statistics, (2) case study material from northern Phetchabun Province, and (3) an analysis of recent sub-national remote-sensing surveys, we reject the dominant interpretation of official statistics and suggest that reforestation has increased in Thailand and plausibly became the overall trend in the late 1990s.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.111 | 0.221 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".