MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077860942 · doi:10.5558/tfc82048-1

Salvage harvesting – past lessons and future issues

2006· article· en· W2077860942 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
David B. Lindenmayer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceU.S. Forest ServiceUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsSalvage loggingLoggingSustainabilityDisturbance (geology)Environmental resource managementNatural (archaeology)Natural resourceResource (disambiguation)Environmental impact assessmentAgroforestryEnvironmental planningBusinessGeographyEnvironmental scienceForestryEcologyForest ecologyComputer scienceEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing prevalence and/or increasing intensity of large-scale natural disturbance events in forests means that post-disturbance salvage logging is becoming more widespread. Salvage logging can have a wide range of environmental impacts, but some of these are not well known or not well understood by policy makers and natural resource managers. Some of these impacts are briefly summarized in this paper. Improved long-term forest planning needs to be embraced that takes into account the not only the environmental but also the social and environmental impacts of salvage harvesting. Past mistakes and future opportunities associated with salvage harvesting are illustrated by a case study from the Lower Cotter Catchment in south-eastern Australia. Key words: salvage harvesting, natural disturbance, environmental impacts, ecologically sustainable forestry, forest planning, long-term forest sustainability

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)0.000
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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations26
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207