MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economic Development Prospects of Forest‐Dependent Communities: Analyzing Trade‐offs Using a Compromise‐Fuzzy Programming Framework

2008· article· en· W2106102140 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompromiseWeightingFuzzy logicDiversification (marketing strategy)Rule of thumbEconomicsComputer scienceEnvironmental economicsNatural resource economicsBusinessArtificial intelligenceMarketingSociologyAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many aboriginal communities look to forest resources for short‐ and long‐term employment, adequate timber for mills, an even flow of wood fiber for community stability, and financial returns for economic diversification. We address these conflicting objectives using multiple‐objective programming. We show how compromise programming can be used to set bounds on fuzzy membership functions, and illustrate the difference between crisp and fuzzy weighting of objectives. Economic development outcomes obtained using compromise and fuzzy programming greatly improve upon those associated with the even‐flow of timber rule of thumb. Yet, timber extraction is an inadequate driver of economic development in rural communities.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · 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