MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2932122009 · doi:10.1093/forestry/cpz016

The effect of stumpage prices on large-area forest growth forecasts based on socio-ecological models

2019· article· en· W2932122009 on OpenAlexaff
Mathieu Fortin, Jean‐Baptiste Pichancourt, Lara Clímaco de Melo, Antoine Colin, Sylvain Caurla

Bibliographic record

VenueForestry An International Journal of Forest Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStumpageEcosystemEnvironmental scienceEcologyEconomicsNatural resource economicsGeographyForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest ecosystems are typical examples of socio-ecological systems. However, in terms of modelling, the social aspect has been given far less attention than the ecological aspect. In this study, we modelled the impact of economic and social factors on the occurrence of harvesting. This harvest model was then integrated into an individual-based model of forest growth designed for large-area forecasts. The resulting socio-ecological model was then used to produce volume predictions for two regions of France. Among the economic factors, the annual stumpage prices in interaction with the species proved to be a significant predictor of harvest occurrence. Simulating different stumpage price evolutions made it possible to predict supply curves for the two regions. Projections until 2060 showed that increases in stumpage prices will be detrimental to standing volumes in both regions. Integrating the demand for wood products into such socio-ecological models in forestry would be a major improvement.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestry An International Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207