MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096709264 · doi:10.1093/jof/107.5.276

A Literal Use of “Forest Health” Safeguards against Misuse and Misapplication

2009· article· en· W2096709264 on OpenAlexafffund
Kenneth F. Raffa, Brian H. Aukema, Barbara Bentz, Allan L. Carroll, Nadir Erbilgin, Daniel A. Herms, Jeffrey A. Hicke, Richard W. Hofstetter, Steven Katovich, B. Staffan Lindgren, Jesse A. Logan, William J. Mattson, A. Steven Munson, Daniel J. Robison, Diana L. Six, Patrick C. Tobin, Philip A. Townsend, Kimberly F. Wallin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Forestry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceRocky Mountain Research StationNatural Resources CanadaRubenstein School of Environment and Natural Resources, University of VermontNorth Carolina State UniversityNorthern Research StationUniversity of IdahoU.S. Forest ServiceUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of MontanaNorthern Arizona UniversityCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityOhio State University
KeywordsSustainabilityWildernessVitalityBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEcoforestryForest managementCLARITYPopularityForest ecologyEnvironmental planningAgroforestryGeographyEcologyIntact forest landscapeEcosystemPsychologyEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.060
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0190.026
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations58
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ForestrySame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207