MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740814039

Productivity Changes of the Wood Product Manufacturing Sector in the U.S.

2008· article· en· W2740814039 on OpenAlexaff
Saba Vahid, Taraneh Sowlati

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityManufacturingBusinessMultifactor productivityCompetition (biology)Product (mathematics)Position (finance)Manufacturing sectorWorkforceIndustrial organizationEconomicsLabour economicsTotal factor productivityEconomic growthMarketing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wood product manufacturing is one of the important manufacturing industries in the United States. Similar to other manufacturing industries, it has been facing many challenges including an increasing competition from offshore producers. Productivity growth is required to improve its competitive position. This study focuses on the productivity changes of the manufacturing industries in the U.S. from 1997 to 2002. The results showed 5% increase in productivity of the whole sector on average over the study period, while the productivity of the wood product manufacturing decreased by 1% over the same period. The efficiency decline of the industry was the main contributor to the decline of its productivity. The recent declines in investments on capital and training and education of workforce in wood manufacturing industry could be among the factors affected its productivity and if this trend continues, it would affect the productivity and consequently the competitive position of the industry more negatively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207