Paradigm shifts in forestry and forest research: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forestry literature often suggests that the scope of forestry and forest research has changed, though there is limited empirical evidence to support this hypothesis. We used a bibliometric approach to quantify changes in word frequency in titles of documents in the Web of Science category “forestry”. Single words and word pairs (bigrams) were extracted from a total of 150 679 documents across 651 sources that spanned the period of 1956–2019. We identified increasing and decreasing trends in word frequency, identified influential documents, and examined country of origin. The number of documents published in forestry research has increased annually, with the United States, Canada, and China producing the highest quantities. The most influential documents in the data set involved methodology, stand development, and climate change. Word frequencies revealed a shift in research away from sustained-yield-based forestry and towards a more interdisciplinary view of forests as ecologically important, dynamic systems. We argue that changes in research trends reflect a broader paradigm shift towards sustainable forest management.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | BibliometricsMetaresearch Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.014 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.124 | 0.211 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".