Welfare Implications of the Allowable Cut Effect in the Context of Sustained Yield and Sustainable Development Forestry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Welfare implications of the Allowable Cut Effect (ACE) have been largely ignored in the literature since the early 1980s. This paper re-assesses the welfare implications of the ACE in the context of sustained yield and sustainable development forestry. With respect to sustained yield forestry, the resolution of the ACE issue was incomplete. Concerns regarding the subsidization of silvicultural investments with existing timber values, and the inability of the ACE to consider values, were not reconciled with the acceptance of the ACE, which occurred upon realization that the ACE reduces the shadow price of sustained yield constraints. This paper attempts to reconcile these two phases in the literature. Furthermore, problems associated with the ACE were essentially assumed away with the acceptance of sustained yield, rather than considering ACE concerns as legitimate problems associated with sustained yield policies. The absence of a resolution to these issues could impede a transition from sustained yield forestry, focussed on timber volumes, to sustainable development forestry, that focuses on sustaining forest resource values. Although such a paradigm shift could potentially alleviate some of the concerns associated with the ACE, similar problems arise that are endemic to the use of sustainability constraints.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it