MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072484545 · doi:10.5558/tfc79733-4

The Canadian Forest Service: Agent of change in an evolving forest environment

2003· article· en· W2072484545 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Yvan Hardy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetitor analysisForest productBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Agency (philosophy)ChampionProduct (mathematics)Service (business)CreativityStrategic planningValue (mathematics)MarketingForest managementPublic relationsEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceForestryEconomicsGeographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Forest Service (CFS) has set new goals and priorities in its Strategic Plan 2003–2008, re-examining the knowledge it creates and the ways in which that knowledge is created. This is in line with the Government of Canada's pursuit of a global strategy for Canadian science and technology, supporting more collaborative international research at the frontiers of knowledge. Also, with the Canadian forest industry facing new and non-traditional competitors and repositioning its product mix, CFS is encountering increased expectations from its external partners, clients and stakeholders—as the primary forest research agency in the country and the main federal body ensuring the competitiveness of the industry. CFS is, therefore, re-defining its role as the leading player in the Canadian forest sector by re-evaluating how it does business. CFS will spearhead the development and implementation of a new national forest S&T agenda, becoming Canada's premier source of authoritative, value-added forest information. It will also champion Canadian forest interests and expertise internationally while strengthening national consensus on Canadian forest policies and programs and advocating Canada's forest agenda within the federal government. To this end, CFS will attract and support talented personnel by creating a workplace conducive to creativity. Key words: Strategic Plan, global S&T strategy, non-traditional competitors, product mix, value-added forest information

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.934
Threshold uncertainty score0.480

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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