MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147237603 · doi:10.1139/x08-120

Optimal on- and off-site forest carbon sequestration under existing timber supply constraints in northern New Brunswick

2008· article· en· W2147237603 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Eric T. Neilson, David A. MacLean, Fan‐Rui Meng, Chris R. Hennigar, Paul A. Arp

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationForest managementEnvironmental scienceForest inventoryForestrySoftwoodAgroforestryGeographyEcologyBotanyCarbon dioxideBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe a procedure to maximize carbon (C) sequestration and apply it to a 428 000 ha industrial forest management area in northern New Brunswick, Canada. Stand-specific C yield tables and C residency periods in harvested wood products were used as inputs to a linear programming model to maximize on- and off-site C sequestration in forest land. Five management scenarios were evaluated. A scenario that maximized on-site forest C sequestration for 80 years, respecting “business-as-usual” harvest constraints, projected an extra 3 t C·ha –1 across the forest management area compared with the business-as-usual scenario, with net C storage potential (forest C + forest C in products – emissions produced from decayed wood products) resulting in approximately 1 Mt C. A scenario to double softwood harvest led to a projected decrease in the forest C pool by approximately 5 t C·ha –1 from 2007 to 2082 and overall storage decrease of almost 2 Mt C from the base run. Other scenarios to increase or decrease harvest volumes by 10% resulted in overall C storage increases of 1.6 Mt C and almost 2.7 Mt C, respectively, above the base run. All scenarios resulted in net sinks of C after the 80 year simulation.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.778

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207