MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997326147 · doi:10.1080/17421772.2019.1701700

Knock on wood: managing forests for carbon in the presence of natural disturbance risk

2019· article· en· W2997326147 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexandra Siebel-McKenna, Craig Johnston, G. Cornelis van Kooten

Bibliographic record

VenueSpatial Economic Analysis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsCarbon sequestrationDisturbance (geology)Carbon fibersNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceCarbon accountingNatural (archaeology)EcosystemForest managementAgroforestryGreenhouse gasEcologyEconomicsGeographyCarbon dioxideComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon prices are used to induce forest managers to adopt longer rotation periods, leading to higher carbon sequestration in the ecosystem and storage in harvested wood products. However, national governments can choose whether or not to include emissions from natural disturbances in carbon accounting schemes. Using a stochastic dynamic programming model, we study optimal forest manager behaviour in the presence of natural disturbance risk and under a range of carbon prices, which we then use to calculate the carbon offsets so generated. Excluding such risk results in a reduced ability to use carbon prices to influence forest manager behaviour.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpatial Economic AnalysisSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207