Costs and regional impacts of restoration thinning programs on the national forests in eastern Oregon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An intertemporal spatial equilibrium model of the eastern Oregon softwood log market was employed to estimate the market and economic welfare impacts of restoration thinning programs established on national forests in the region. Programs treated only lands with sawtimber thinning volume and varied by the extent of public subsidies for costs, the types of costs that could be subsidized, and the form of the subsidy payment. Impacts on private harvest timing, numbers of mills, and postprogram log prices in the region were found to vary markedly with the form of the program. Log consumers (lumber mills) consistently realized relatively large surplus gains, while private log producers' surplus showed smaller but consistent losses. For a comparable subsidy budget, programs that subsidized only hazard removal costs, on sites where net unsubsidized sawtimber returns promised to be less that these costs, led to a larger area treated than did programs with more flexible subsidy conditions. Across all programs, net agency receipts from sawtimber sales were estimated to be insufficient to cover the costs of all areas in need of thinning treatment (lands with and without sawtimber thinning volume).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".