Profile 2009: softwood sawmills in the United States and Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 2006 and the end of 2009, the production capacity of the softwood lumber sector covered by this report in the United States and Canada has shrunk from 190.8 million m 3 (nominal) to 166.4 million m 3 . The corresponding number of mills slumped from 1,025 to 875 over the same time and from 1,322 recorded in 1995. The Canadian capacity went from 88.2 million m 3 to 71.6 million m 3 , a loss of 19%, while the U.S. capacity dropped from 102.6 million m 3 to 94.8 million m 3 , a loss of 8%. These losses are attributable to three unprofitable years of sawmilling caused by the contraction in construction. Construction and repair and remodeling of homes each accounted for about 35% of total lumber consumption in 2006. Their downturn has caused demand to lag substantially behind the capacity that was built up to supply the prior boom. The greater drop in Canadian capacity can be deduced from a number of factors including the imposition of tariffs of up to 15% on exports to the U.S. and the strengthening of the Canadian dollar. Based on underlying population growth, the demand for home building is expected to rebound but somewhat slowly until the overhang of unoccupied homes built in the former building surge is absorbed. Further attrition of capacity is likely, as profitability is unlikely to return until a combination of recovering demand and contracting supply due to further capacity attrition equalize in the market.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it