MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economic Dynamics of Tree Planting for Carbon Uptake on Marginal Agricultural Lands

2000· article· en· W2153109350 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfforestationForestryAgricultureGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a result of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, afforestation of agricultural lands can be expected to take on an important role in the CO 2 emissions reduction policy arsenal of some countries. To date, identification of suitable (marginal) agricultural lands has been left mainly to foresters, but their criteria fail to take into account economic nuances. In this study, an optimal control model is used to determine the optimal level of afforestation in the western Canada. The results indicate that, while planting fast‐growing trees for carbon uptake on marginal agricultural land may be important, the path dynamics matter in determining whether Canada can rely on afforestation to meet its obligations under Kyoto. Sous l'impulsion duprotocole de Kyoto (1997), on peuts'attendre à voirle reboisement des terres agricoles prendre une place importante dans l'arsenal de mesures de réduction des émissions de CO 2 de certains pays. Jusqu'à présent, le choix des terres agricoles utilisables (c.‐à‐d. marginales pour l'agriculture) a été laissé principalement aux forestiers, mais les critères sur lesquels ces derniers se basent ne tiennent pas compte des aspects économiques. Nous utilisons ici un modèle de contrôle optimal pour déterminer le niveau optimal de reboisement qui conviendrait pour l'ouest du Canada. Il se dégage des résultats que, sans remettre en question l'importance de la plantation d'arbres à croissance rapide pour la capture du C dans les terres agricoles marginales, les décideurs devront tenir compte de la dynamique des sentiers avant que le reboisement puisse ètre la solution adoptée par le Canada pour honorer les engagements pris dans le cadre du Protocole.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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 score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.151 · 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