MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905204594

Ontario’s managed forests and harvested wood products contribute to greenhouse gas mitigation from 2020 to 2100

2018· article· en· W2905204594 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
ChenJiaxin, T Ter-MikaelianMichael, Q NgPeter, J ColomboStephen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasBaseline (sea)ForestryEnvironmental scienceBusiness as usualCarbon stockForest managementWood productionAgroforestryGeographyClimate changeEcologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used an integrated approach to estimate the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation potential of Ontario’s forestry sector, defined as the managed forests and the harvested wood products (HWP) originating from these forests. The 44.7 million ha of managed forests in this study included Crown forests designated as 41 forest management units (FMUs) for timber harvesting, productive forests north of the area of undertaking, large parks, and private forest land. Forests and HWP were simulated from approximately 2010 to 2100, with carbon (C) stocks and emissions reported for the period 2020 to 2100. A baseline scenario was defined to represent business as usual forestry operations in Ontario, in which the 41 FMUs and the private forests were harvested at historical (1990–2009) rates, and HWP production and end uses were assumed to follow Ontario’s historical values (1991–2010). In the baseline scenario, the forest C stocks were projected to increase from 7229.7 million tonnes (Mt C) in 2020 to 7424 Mt C in 2100. Th...

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207