MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2283956383 · doi:10.14288/1.0103146

Potential international market for mountain pine beetle killed trees

2013· article· en· W2283956383 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jay Heo

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMountain pine beetleForestryGeographyAgroforestryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The utilization of mountain pine beetle (MPB) killed wood and the diversification of the global trading market have been issues in the British Columbia’s forest industry. Currently, almost half of the lodgepole pines in BC are attacked by MPB. The infestation of lodgpole pines is not only losing economic values but also damaging ecosystems and environments. MPB killed wood appears as blue stain in sapwood. However, the wood remains unaffected on the mechanical property, so it can be still used for producing many types of value-added products. The major challenges of using MPB killed wood are the extreme dryness, short shelf life, and limited markets. The Canada’s forest industry has relied heavily on the U.S. market. The reliance of one country has shown serious problems by experiencing the recent global economic crisis. China’s forest industry has become the most important client to the BC’s forest industry by offsetting the decreased exports to U.S. Many markets have been examined to discover the potential markets for the MPB killed wood products. As a result, there should be markets specially aimed to utilize the MPB killed wood. However, there are uncertainties in optimizing processing wood products from MPB-killed wood and the long term fibre supply.

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)0.000
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0610.004

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.158
Teacher spread0.154 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicForest Insect Ecology and Management→French-language works237,207→