MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205111264 · doi:10.5558/tfc2011-069

Forest carbon management and carbon trading: A review of Canadian forest options for climate change mitigation

2011· review· en· W2205111264 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Denise M. Golden, Mike Smith, S. J. Colombo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsOntario Forest Research InstituteLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon offsetKyoto ProtocolGreenhouse gasClimate changeClimate change mitigationForest managementRatificationEnvironmental scienceTaigaEmissions tradingNatural resource economicsSustainable forest managementGlobal warmingBusinessAgroforestryEnvironmental resource managementForestryGeographyEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forests have significant potential to mitigate climate change. Canada has 30% of the world's boreal forests. The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol commoditized carbon (C) on an international scale. To achieve Canada's emission reduction targets and mitigate climate change, the potential of forest C offset projects and forest C trading is being evaluated. Carbon trading and forest C management have economic and policy implications and potential trade-offs in other forest management objectives. We discuss how forest C management and trading can contribute to global efforts for atmospheric greenhouse gas emissions reduction through either utilization and/or conservation strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.778
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207