Quantifying and easing conflicting goals between interest groups in natural resource planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Management of natural resources at the regional level is a compromise between a variety of objectives and interests. At the local level, management of the forests depends upon the ownership structure, with forest owners using their forests as they see fit. A potential conflict occurs if the forest owners’ management decisions are counter to the interests of society in general or the industry that relies on the forest resource as their raw material. We explore the intensity of this conflict at the regional level in several large boreal forest production landscapes. To explore the conflict, we investigate three main interest groups: (i) economically oriented forest owners; (ii) industry groups (focusing on maintaining an even timber supply); and (iii) a group representing general public interests (focusing on enhancing ecosystem services and biodiversity protection). The severity of conflicts differs between interest groups; we found a minor conflict between the economically oriented forest owners and industry and a severe conflict among general public interests and the other groups. By quantifying the conflicts, visualizing the impacts shared among interest groups, we anticipate that through shared discovery and understanding, forests can be managed to lessen the conflicts between interest groups.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".