MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2255535904 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpv042

The economic impact of the mountain pine beetle infestation in British Columbia: provincial estimates from a CGE analysis

2015· article· en· W2255535904 on OpenAlexaffabout
L. J. Corbett, Patrick Withey, Van Lantz, Thomas O. Ochuodho

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New BrunswickSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputable general equilibriumInfestationEconomic impact analysisGeographyMountain pine beetleAgricultural economicsEconomicsForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mountain pine beetle (MPB) epidemic in British Columbia (BC) peaked in 2004 and 2005, and by 2012, >53 per cent of the merchantable pine had been attacked. The annual kill has declined steadily since 2005 and is projected to continue to do so. However, given the significant amount of beetle killed wood, the timber supply is expected to fall dramatically in the coming decades. This study estimates the future provincial economic impacts of the MPB infestation in a dynamic computable general equilibrium (CGE) model, by examining the effects of the reduction in timber supply from BC forests over the 2009–2054 period. Results suggest that there will be a cumulative present value loss of $57.37 billion (or 1.34 per cent) in GDP and a $90 billion decline in welfare (compensating variation) from 2009 to 2054 in BC. These estimates emphasize the significance of negative economic impacts that may be in store for the economy in this, and potentially other provinces, and can be used to help policy-makers better understand the net benefits of adaptation options geared towards reducing the spread of such pests.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations82
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207