MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315850920 · doi:10.5558/tfc2012-057

Stakeholder identification and analysis for adaptive governance in the Kovdozersky Model Forest, Russian Federation

2012· article· en· W2315850920 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marine Elbakidze, Per Angelstam, Robert Axelsson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInterregMinistry of EnvironmentSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsStakeholderBiomeCorporate governanceSustainable forest managementEnvironmental resource managementForest managementBusinessTaigaIdentification (biology)Order (exchange)ForestryEnvironmental planningGeographyPolitical scienceEcologyEcosystemEconomicsPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Model Forest is a concept developed to facilitate implementation of sustainable forest management (SFM). The key functions of a Model Forest are to develop innovations and test new ideas related to SFM, driven by the needs, interests and challenges of Model Forest stakeholders and local communities. Russia is an important global actor when it comes to the boreal forest biome and forestry, but also has several challenges related to development of adaptive governance and the introduction of SFM. The purpose of this study is to identify landscape stakeholders—their values, needs and interests— in order to develop and adapt the governance of forest landscapes in the Kovdozersky Model Forest. The location of the Kovdozersky Model Forest in the Barents region presents opportunities for learning between Nordic countries and Russia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207