MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059845414 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2013-0475

The economics of timber and bioenergy production and carbon storage in Scots pine stands

2014· article· en· W2059845414 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sampo Pihlainen, Olli Tahvonen, Sami Niinimäki

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademy of Finland
KeywordsScots pineCarbon sequestrationBiomass (ecology)BioenergyForestryEnvironmental scienceAgroforestryCarbon fibersSilvicultureWood productionProduction (economics)ProductivityGreenhouse gasForest managementEcologyBiofuelPinus <genus>GeographyMathematicsBotanyBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We optimize timber and bioenergy production combined with carbon storage in Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) stands, using an ecological-economic model. Forest growth is specified with a highly detailed process-based growth specification, and optimization is based on an efficient generalized pattern search algorithm. The optimized variables are rotation length, initial stand density, and the number, intensity, timing, and type of thinnings. The carbon pool includes all aboveground biomass (including dead trees) and timber products. The analysis includes the comparison of different carbon subsidy systems. The results are presented for the most relevant site types and thermal zones in Finland. Carbon storage increases the optimal rotation length, number of thinnings, and initial density at all forest sites. Carbon storage effects on stand density and harvests are strongest at poor sites. Timber output increases with carbon price. High natural mortality in our results implies notable carbon storage in dead trees and a positive contribution to biodiversity. The stand-level analysis is extended to a cost-efficient national-level carbon storage plan.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations61
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207