MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163476075

Environmental and socio-economic consequences of forest carbon payments in Bolivia: Results of the OSIRIS-Bolivia model

2012· preprint· en· W2163476075 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lykke E. Andersen, Jonah Busch, Elizabeth Curran, Juan Carlos Ledezma, Joaquín Mayorga, Mélissa Bellier

Bibliographic record

VenueEconstor (Econstor) · 2012
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilInternational Development Research CentreGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsDeforestation (computer science)IncentiveNatural resource economicsAgriculturePaymentAgricultural landEconomicsBusinessGeographyAgricultural economics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bolivia has significant potential to abate climate change by reducing deforestation. This opportunity presents economic and environmental tradeoffs. While these tradeoffs have been hotly debated, they have as yet been the subject of little quantitative analysis. We introduce the OSIRIS-Bolivia model to provide a quantitative basis for decision-making. OSIRIS-Bolivia is an Excel-based tool for analyzing the potential effects of incentive payments to reduce emissions from deforestation (REDD) in Bolivia. It is based on a spatial econometric model of deforestation in Bolivia during the period 2001-2005, and uses information on forest cover, deforestation rates, geographical conditions, and drivers of deforestation, including agricultural opportunity costs, for more than 120,000 pixels covering the whole country. OSIRIS-Bolivia is based on a partial equilibrium model in which reductions in deforestation in one region reduce the supply of agricultural products to the domestic market, which in turn causes an increase in the price of agricultural products, making conversion of land to agriculture more attractive and thus stimulating an increase in deforestation in other regions (leakage). The model can help answer questions such as: Where in Bolivia are carbon incentive payments most likely to result in reduced deforestation? Who are most likely to benefit from REDD? How much money will it take to reduce deforestation by a given amount? To what extent might transaction costs or preferences for agricultural income undermine the goals of the REDD program?

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconstor (Econstor)Same topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207