MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022318192 · doi:10.2737/fpl-rp-608

Profile 2003: softwood sawmills in the United States and Canada

2003· report· en· W3022318192 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Henry Spelter, Matthew Alderman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoftwoodAgricultural economicsProfit (economics)Wood industryOperations managementEconomicsForestryAgricultural scienceEngineeringEnvironmental scienceGeographyPulp and paper industryMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About 160 fewer softwood sawmills are operating in the United States and Canada than were 8 years ago. Nevertheless, the combined capacity of the remaining mills has increased by 16%, to over 173 million cubic meters. Of the approximately 1,140 mills, about 470 characterize their output as dimension lumber, accounting for 67% of capacity; 136 list studs as their primary output, representing 16% of the industry's volume; and 139 are primarily board mills, making up a little over 5%. The others make a variety of specialty products. In this report, the location and relative size of sawmills by State and Province are described in maps and tables. The data show that growth in capacity over the past 8 years has exceeded growth in demand, leaving the industry with excess capacity of at least 3%. This has contributed to volatile pricing and narrow profit margins within the past 3 years, a condition aggravated by the dispute over Canadian lumber imports.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.009

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207