MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2343849776 · doi:10.14288/1.0075549

Leveraging Geographic Information Systems in British Columbia's Forest Industry

2012· article· en· W2343849776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Harold Stevenson

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographic information systemForest industryGeographyEnvironmental resource managementRemote sensingForestryEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay is written with the intent of being easily understood by forest managers and decision makers who may not necessarily possess knowledge of GIS. Forest managers have the ability to maximize the value they receive from their GIS investment by instituting a few simple yet effective measures. First, companies must develop a GIS vision and long-term plan which is consistent with the company’s objectives. Critical components of the plan must include: central management of the enterprise GIS program; hiring qualified individuals; building capacity through increasing GIS knowledge; organizing GIS data in a company-wide data repository; and making the data more available to elementary GIS users. A successful GIS program is characterized by central management and it must be fully implemented across the entire company to be most effective. Managers must employ highly skilled individuals who possess both GIS education or training and forestry education or experience as well as ensure that ongoing GIS training is provided to all levels of GIS users. Roles and responsibilities within GIS positions should be clearly identified and employees should be responsible for performing duties commensurate with their individual skill level. Individuals should not be expected to perform tasks outside of their level of expertise. GIS data must be organized by feature type in a multi-user data repository and managed from a central location. Several pragmatic methods are suggested to make GIS data more available and usable to elementary GIS users. These methods include layer files, map templates and documentation. Companies must be able to use all of their data to its full potential to realize the best return on their GIS investment. By inputting a small amount of additional resources towards efficiently using their GIS personnel and programs, forest managers have the potential to yield higher levels of return throughout the company’s business.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.008
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.155 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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