MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2517961593

U.S.-Canada softwood lumber trade disputes and lumber price volatility

2001· article· en· W2517961593 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daowei Zhang, Changyou Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueForest Products Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftwoodVolatility (finance)EconomicsAgricultural economicsEngineeringPulp and paper industryEconometrics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper uses analysis of variance (ANOVA) and regression analysis to study U.S. softwood lumber price volatility between 1980 and 2000, the period that coincides with several episodes of U.S.-Canada softwood lumber trade disputes. The results show that softwood lumber prices were more volatile in the 1990s than in the 1980s, with the period between 1991 to 1996 being the most volatile, the period covered by the 1996 U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Trade Agreement (SLA) being the second most volatile, and the period covered by the U.S.-Canada Memorandum of Understanding being the least volatile. Uncertainty, supply constraints due to the SLA and declining availability of federal timber in the western United States, and variations in housing starts were the primary causes of price volatility in the 1990s. The results of this paper have implications on resolving the U.S.-Canada softwood lumber trade disputes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.197
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations18
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForest Products JournalSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207