Enhancing Research Utilization for Sustainable Forest Management: The Role of Model Forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model Forests were developed to bridge the gap between the emerging policy and the practice of sustainable forest management (SFM) in the early 1990s and, as such, to facilitate uptake of research findings into practice. The purpose of this study was to explore mechanisms that may explain why some research results are used in the policy and practice of SFM and others are not. Based on interviews in three Model Forests in Canada, the most prominent factors influencing research utilization identified were (1) relevance of the research findings to users’ needs, (2) effective research design and scientific credibility, and (3) user involvement in the research process. However, it was evident that there is no one factor that influences uptake, but rather a combination dependent upon the circumstances of each situation. This study also deepens understanding of the science–practice/policy interface by exploring the notion of Model Forests as boundary organizations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.094 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".