MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157728534 · doi:10.5558/tfc81717-5

An adaptive management process for forest soil conservation

2005· article· en· W2157728534 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

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Management and Crop Yield
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Environmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementSoil functionsProcess (computing)Adaptive managementVulnerability (computing)Forest managementCertificationSoil waterComputer scienceAgroforestrySoil scienceSoil biodiversitySoil fertility

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil disturbance guidelines should be based on comparable disturbance categories adapted to specific local soil conditions, validated by monitoring and research. Guidelines, standards, and practices should be continually improved based on an adaptive management process, which is presented in this paper. Core components of this process include: reliable monitoring protocols for assessing and comparing soil disturbance for operations, certification and sustainability protocols; effective methods to predict the vulnerability of specific soils to disturbance and related mitigative measures; and, quantitative research to build a database that documents the practical consequences of soil disturbance for tree growth and soil functions. Key words: soil disturbance; soil compaction; rutting; monitoring (implementation, effectiveness, and validation); criteria and indicators; Montreal Process

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.221 · 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