Biodiversity or bioenergy: is deadwood conservation an environmental issue for French forest owners?<sup>1</sup>This article is one of a selection of papers from the International Symposium on Dynamics and Ecological Services of Deadwood in Forest Ecosystems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest owners are confronted with contradictory views on the importance of deadwood. Environmentalists argue that it should be left in the forest to conserve biodiversity, provide a habitat for specific fauna and flora, and maintain soil quality through wood decay. Conversely, industrial stakeholders, and some public decision makers, advocate harvesting deadwood. Based on a sociological survey and qualitative interviews, we first analyzed the detailed environmental opinions and values of four groups of French foresters as well as their attitudes towards biodiversity, in particular regarding deadwood conservation. We identified various types of attitudes towards deadwood, which could be seen as waste, an unprofitable by-product, a meaningless entity, or a key part of the ecosystem. We then studied the arguments leading them to choose between deadwood conservation and deadwood harvesting for bioenergy production. On one hand, foresters are interested in short-term profitability and pest control, while others fear potential loss of fertility. Finally, the article shows that specific approaches to deadwood conservation ought to be negotiated at a local scale, pending further scientific investigation into the impact of deadwood on biodiversity and the development of more positive attitudes toward ecological concerns in the forest owners’ community.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".