MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184757097 · doi:10.3390/f6124377

Applying Resilience Concepts in Forest Management: A Retrospective Simulation Approach

2015· article· en· W2184757097 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caren C. Dymond, David L. Spittlehouse, Sinclair Tedder, Katherine Hopkins, Katharine McCallion, James Sandland

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsMinistry of ForestsGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForest managementReforestationEnvironmental resource managementMountain pine beetlePsychological resilienceDisturbance (geology)Resilience (materials science)Climate changeEcological resilienceAdaptive managementEcoforestryGeographyAdaptive capacityForest restorationForest ecologyEcologyEnvironmental scienceForestryEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing the resilience of ecological and sociological systems has been proposed as an option to adapt to changing future climatic conditions. However, few studies test the applicability of those strategies to forest management. This paper uses a real forest health incident to assess the ability of forest management strategies to affect ecological and economic resilience of the forest. Two landscape scale strategies are compared to business as usual management for their ability to increase resilience to a climate-change induced mountain pine beetle outbreak in the Kamloops Timber Supply Area, British Columbia, Canada for the period 1980 to 2060. Proactive management to reduce high risk species while maintaining or increasing diversity through reforestation was found to be more resilient in terms of the metrics: post-disturbance growing stock, improved volume and stability of timber flow, and net revenue. However, landscape-scale indicators of diversity were little affected by management. Our results were robust to uncertainty in tree growth rates and timber value and show that adapting to climate change through improving the resilience of forested landscapes is an economically viable option.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.397
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207