An Evaluation of Crown Forest Management in Ontario from a Free Market Environmentalist Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the forestry and logging industry in Crown forests in Ontario. We present historical trends on harvested areas, employment, revenue collected by the province, biophysical impacts, and revenue from the industry. We discuss the institutional context of Crown forest management in Ontario which includes a description of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) and NGOs such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and the Forest Stewardship Council. We conclude that the current management of Crown forests in Ontario is not achieving maximum potential, as we found that there is a decline in employment and revenue from the industry. We recommend a Free Market Environmentalist (FME) approach to Crown forest management in Ontario. This approach involves common property management and the establishment of Forest Trusts. Current management does not take into account externalities that FME would, which could enhance potential in order to achieve maximum employment and revenue. There is a lack of biophysical data being collected to document the impact on key wildlife species and there is a lack of transparency regarding the management of crown forests by the MNRF. The Haliburton forest was used as case study which emulates an example of a FME approach.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".