MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085468563 · doi:10.5558/tfc79652-3

Conformance of Ontario's forest management planning with criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management

2003· article· en· W2085468563 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Martin Herbert Kijazi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSustainable forest managementForest managementEnvironmental resource managementPlan (archaeology)Sustainable managementGap analysis (conservation)ConformityUnit (ring theory)BusinessForestryGeographyHabitatEnvironmental scienceEcologySustainabilityMathematicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prescriptions of the Forest Management Planning Manual (FMPM) for Ontario's Crown forests are examined for conformance with the elements of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM) Criteria and Indicators (C&I) of sustainable forest management (SFM). The examination identifies gaps and highlights forest management planning aspects that require gap–bridging interventions at the forest management unit (FMU) level. The three levels (parts) of the FMPM—Management Planning, Annual Operations, and Reporting & Monitoring—are examined. Gaps are categorized in three groups—major, intermediate, and minor gaps. Major gaps are recorded for five out of 22 elements of the CCFM C&I framework, and these gaps indicate inadequate prescriptions for the corresponding elements at all the three levels. Minor gaps are also recorded for five elements, and these gaps indicate inadequate prescriptions at the monitoring level. Intermediate gaps are recorded for 11 elements, and depending on the specific element and indicator, inadequacy of prescriptions may only be for operations, reporting and monitoring, or may also include the planning level. The main findings of the gap analysis are that none of the six criteria of SFM has been fully incorporated in the FMPM; Part C (Reporting and Monitoring) has the highest degree and Part A (Plan Contents) has the lowest degree of non–conformity with respect to CCFM C&I framework; at the criterion–level the Global Ecological Cycles has major gaps while three criteria—Soil and Water Conservation, Multiple Benefits, and Society' Responsibility—have intermediate gaps; and the changes in the FMPM have been incremental while the shift in the concept of forest management from Sustained Yield Timber Management to SFM was a drastic change. Key words: biological diversity, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers, criteria and indicators, ecological cycles, forest management, multiple benefits, society's responsibility

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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