MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292699130 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v11n4p53

Ownership Changes and Harvesting Patterns Associated with the Forest Products Industry in West-Central Alabama from 1984 to 2014

2018· article· en· W2292699130 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seth David Hunt, Rebecca J. Barlow, John S. Kush, Larry D. Teeter, Conner Bailey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDivestmentBusinessInvestment (military)EstateLoggingReal estate investment trustForest managementLand tenureAgricultural economicsForest productGovernment (linguistics)Real estateForestryGeographyFinanceEconomicsAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the beginning of the 1980s, vertically integrated forest products companies have divested their forestland with much of the new ownership being real estate investment trusts (REITs) and timberland investment management organizations (TIMOs). These new landowners and their associated behavior of intensive timber management and higher and better use conversion has given rise to issues such as land-use change, fragmentation, and conservation. To better gauge harvesting patterns and ownership changes associated with the divestment of forestland by forest industry and the arrival of TIMOs and REITs on the forested landscape, eleven Landsat scenes were used to detect harvest activity within the Alabama counties of Bibb, Hale, Pickens, and Tuscaloosa from 1984 to 2014. Detected harvesting activity was paired with county parcel data and then classified based on landowner type: REITs, TIMOs, forest product industry, government, and non-industrial private forest (NIPF) landowners. Overall harvest trends showed a decrease in harvest rates from 1984 to 2005 with a slight increase in harvest rates after 2005. Per scene interval, acres harvested were highly variable for NIPF and relatively stable for forest industry during this time. Government ownership maintained relatively low and stable harvesting behavior throughout the study period. Acres harvested by REITs was relatively low. TIMOs showed an ever increasing rate of harvest within the study area until the last scene interval (2011-2014).

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207