Knowing a socially sustainable forest when you see one: Implications for results-based forestry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The wider forestry community is struggling to define what the third leg of sustainability—social sustainability—actually means. While work is now underway to develop better social Criteria and Indicators for sustainable forest management in BC and elsewhere, it is already becoming clear that the social process of decision-making and management can be as important to society as the social outcomes. This has significant implications for a results-based system such as certification or a new Forestry Code in BC. This paper explores what a truly open and accountable planning process might look like. The achievement of social sustainability depends in part on society seeing tangible proof that forestry is ecologically sustainable and carefully designed. For many of the local and global publics, the forest landscape itself provides strong evidence of forest manager's performance. The concept of Visible Stewardship, the obvious expression of care and commitment to sustainable forestry, and emerging tools such as computer visualisation of future forests, may be vital to building trust in sustainable forestry. Key words: social sustainability, social criteria and indicators, public involvement, forest stewardship, visual quality, visualization, public perceptions
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".