Exploring the linkages between multifunctional forestry goals and the legacy of spruce plantations in Scotland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the ecosystem services associated with woodlands, as they are viewed by individuals in Scotland, with the idea to reconcile objectives for multifunctionality with the legacy of past forestry systems that were not designed with multifunctionality in mind. Research follows a semi-qualitative route and applies the Q method to identify and explain a range of attitudes among the general public and forestry-associated stakeholders regarding the functional future of forestry in Scotland. Four distinctive groups of attitudes were identified and key factors influencing the attitudinal diversity were explained. Despite the uncovered attitudinal heterogeneity, all groups of attitudes have strong emphasis on native woodland regeneration and on improvement of aesthetic values of woodlands but differ concerning afforestation. An improved understanding of what people think provided an indication of their recognition of ecosystem services types and the trade-offs between these, opportunities available, and factors that can hamper forestry development (e.g., concerning the aspiration of increasing Scotland’s forest cover to 25%). Findings suggest that the productivists’ position (for which the economic objectives are important) remains strong in Scotland. Results (compared with those in several other countries) demonstrate comparability between public and stakeholder perspectives in support of the multifunctional forestry, and this has distinct policy relevance and implications for decision-making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".