MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058235192 · doi:10.5558/tfc80478-4

Divided landbase, overlapping tenures, and fire risk

2004· article· en· W2058235192 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Steven G. Cumming, Glen W. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta-Pacific Forest Industries
KeywordsBusinessTaigaWoodlandForest managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental scienceForestryEconomicsAgroforestryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tardis forest modeling program was used to investigate the effects on timber supply and delivered wood cost of alternative forest tenure policies on a forest management agreement area in northeastern Alberta. Under the current tenure policy (business as usual), the woodlands divisions of one large pulp company and several sawmill companies are responsible for different aspects of planning and forest management on the area. We propose an alternative tenure policy (global planning) whereby one forest management entity is responsible for harvesting timber and delivering it to the various mills. The global planning alternative has several advantages over business as usual, especially for the sawmill companies. With business as usual, the sawmill companies experience shortfalls in timber harvest volume. No shortfall is seen with global planning. Under global planning, delivered wood cost for the sawmill companies is reduced by $2.81 m–3 , on average. Forest fire is an important disturbance affecting timber supply in the area. We examine the joint effects of tenure policy and fire using Monte Carlo simulation. The superiority of global planning is even more apparent with fire incorporated in the model. According to our simulations, many sawmills are very likely to experience persistent sharp decreases in delivered wood volume under business as usual. No such decreases occur under global planning. Key words: forest tenure, simulation modeling, timber harvest scheduling, forest fire, policy analysis, boreal mixedwood, sustainable forest management

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2004
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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