Essay-Science, Politics, and U.S. Forest Service Law: The Battle over the Forest Service Planning Rule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On November 9, 2000, in the waning days of the Clinton administration, the Secretary of Agriculture issued the final rule reviewing the regulations implementing the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). This decision was the culmination of a nearly decade-long process of redefining the mission of the USDA Forest Service. In a striking departure from the agency's historical emphasis on multiple use, the rule established ecological sustainability as the key objective guiding planning for the national forests. The supporting material for the rule explicitly states that it is based on the recommendations of an eminent committee of scientists. The secretary appointed the Committee of Scientists in 1997, and the committee issued its report March 15, 1999. The new policy was not in place for long, however. The Bush administration suspended the rule in May 2001, and in November 2002 issued a new proposed rule that would reverse a number of changes embodied in the Clinton Rule.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".