Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadians are taking action to advance sustainable forest management with the National Forest Strategy (NFS) 2003–2008, A Sustainable Forest: The Canadian Commitment. This national policy framework reaffirms Canadians' long-term vision and defines strategic targets to be achieved by the forest community at large. Seen as an international model, the NFS serves to establish partnerships and to promote policies as encouraged by the Final Statement issued at the XII World Forestry Congress. Canada and the United States of America have national forest programmes that are advancing a sustainable North American forest and are contributing to the well-being of the global forest. Stronger mechanisms and liaisons between developed countries with such programmes will help Canada and other likeminded countries to push sustainable forest management concepts even further as they evolve. Key words: global forest convention, international network, national forest programme, National Forest Strategy Coalition, sector roundtable
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.011 |
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".