MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141564380 · doi:10.5558/tfc80341-3

An ecological rationale for sustainable forest management concepts at Riverside Forest Products, southcentral British Columbia

2004· article· en· W2141564380 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert G. D’Eon, Daryll M. Hebert, Stephen L Viszlai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsWestern Forest ProductsPacific Insight Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable forest managementForest managementContext (archaeology)Environmental resource managementGeographyForest ecologyZoningEcologyAgroforestryForestryEcosystemEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Riverside Forest Products (Kelowna, British Columbia) has embraced a sustainable forest management approach for the management of one its forest tenures—Tree Farm License 49. This document discusses the rationale behind many of the concepts within this approach in the context of current ecological theory. We focus specifically on the following concepts: (1) forest retention, (2) ecosystem representation, (3) ecological contributions from unharvested forests, (4) zoning and the TRIAD approach, (5) stand-level habitat elements and landscape-level features, and (6) ecological indicators. This document provides an example of the application of current ecological theory within a commercial forestry operation in Canada and is thus broadly applicable to foresters, forest managers, and researchers in most jurisdictions. Key words: British Columbia, criteria and indicators, ecological representation, forest retention, sustainable forest management, Riverside Forest Products, TRIAD

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations14
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207