Afforestation on private land in Canada from 1990 to 2002 estimated from historical records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information on afforestation on private lands in Canada from 1990 to 2002 was compiled from a variety of sources in support of the Government of Canada's Feasibility Assessment of Afforestation for Carbon Sequestration (FAACS) initiative. Data collection focused on afforestation that was verifiable and consistent with definitions in the Kyoto Protocol. Analysis of the dataset provides insight into the scale, scope and trends in afforestation activity in Canada. Most of the planting occurred in Quebec and Ontario. Ninety-five percent of the afforestation events were smaller than 10 ha. The national average area planted in an afforestation event is 2 ha. Regional averages were higher in the west than in the east. The annual area planted declined from 1990 to 2002 in most provinces, though the Prairie Provinces were an exception. The data agree with other sources of information on afforestation activity in Canada. An analysis of carbon sequestration in the plantations documented in the FAACS database is presently underway and will be reported in the near future. Key words: afforestation, reforestation, climate change, carbon sequestration, Kyoto Protocol, private forest lands
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".