MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329431724 · doi:10.1139/x10-235

Adaptation options to reduce climate change vulnerability of sustainable forest management in the Austrian Alps

2011· article· en· W2329431724 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rupert Seidl, Werner Rammer, Manfred J. Lexer

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental resource managementForest managementEcosystem servicesClimate changeVulnerability (computing)Adaptive managementSustainable forest managementAdaptive capacityGoods and servicesEcoforestryEcosystem managementForest ecologyBusinessAdaptation (eye)Vulnerability assessmentEnvironmental planningForest restorationGeographyEcosystemEnvironmental scienceForestryEcologyPsychological resilienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustaining forest ecosystem functions and services under climate change is a major challenge for forest management. While conceptual advances of adapting coupled social–ecological systems to environmental changes have been made recently, good practice examples at the operational level still remain rare. The current study presents the development of adaptation options for 164 550 ha of commercial forests under the stewardship of the Austrian Federal Forests (AFF). We used a comprehensive vulnerability assessment as analysis framework, employing ecosystem modeling and multicriteria decision analysis in a participatory approach with forest planers of the AFF. An assessment of the vulnerability of multiple ecosystem goods and services under current management served as the starting point for the development of adaptation options. Measures found to successfully reduce vulnerability include the promotion of mixed stands of species well adapted to emerging environmental conditions, silvicultural techniques fostering complexity, and increased management intensity. Assessment results for a wide range of site and stand conditions, stand treatment programs, and future climate scenarios were used to condense robust recommendations for adapting the management guidelines currently used by AFF practitioners. Overall, our results highlight the importance of timely adaptation to sustain forest goods and services and document the respective potential of silvicultural measures.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations121
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207