Considerations for boreal mixedwood silviculture: A view from the dismal science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the end of the twentieth century, there have been some notable changes in the economic climate facing forest products companies operating in the boreal mixedwood forest in Canada: low product prices, a strong Canadian dollar, and increasing recognition of the importance of non-timber forest values are major challenges that must be faced by forest managers and provincial governments. In response to these challenges, foresters and governments may need to rethink the objectives of forest management as stated in policy, and to rethink the silviculture prescriptions applied to the forest. This rethinking may well lead to a forest with less annual production (at least in terms of softwood volume), but with greater economic value for timber production. I present results of financial analysis of several alternative management scenarios for the mixedwood component of the Boreal Plains ecozone, and conclude that only very low cost silvicultural prescriptions make sense when silvicultural expenditures are viewed as an investment in future stands. If these silvicultural expenditures are viewed as a cost of current harvesting, they may be large enough to turn a profitable timber harvesting opportunity into a money-losing one.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".