MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156581485 · doi:10.5558/tfc83485-4

The origin and early application of the principle of sustainable forest management

2007· article· en· W2156581485 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
E. K. Morgenstern

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicForest Ecology and Biodiversity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySustainable forest managementForest managementEcoforestryForestryStock (firearms)Sustainable managementCertified woodBusinessNature ConservationAgroforestrySustainable developmentForest ecologyIntact forest landscapeGeographyPolitical scienceEcologyEcosystemEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foresters are among the first professionals that developed principles for sustainability. The need for sustainable forests was first expressed in Germany by H.K. von Carlowitz in 1713. Since about 1800 methods to achieve sustainability based on wood volume, forest area, or growing stock have been introduced in all jurisdictions in Germany and Austria. The general acceptance of the sustainability principle, improved education and professionalism of foresters, and the reform of forest administrations have all contributed to the success of forestry in central Europe. In Canada, forest conservation and sustainable management have been discussed since 1907 when university education in forestry was initiated, and sustainability is now firmly established in all provinces. Key words: history of forestry, forest inventory, forest regulation, forest management, G.L. Hartig, H. Cotta, J.C. Hundeshagen, B.E. Fernow

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Ecology and Biodiversity StudiesFrench-language works237,207