How does strategic choice affect the performance of community forest enterprises? A study in the Cascadia region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proponents of decentralized forest governance make a compelling case that community forest enterprises (CFEs) can aid in sustainable and equitable utilization of forest resources. The effectiveness of CFEs is thus dependent on their ability to balance social, environmental, and financial performance. In this paper, we examine the relationship between a commonly recommended differentiation strategy and CFE effectiveness. Using data obtained through a survey administered on 51 CFEs located in the Cascadia region (British Columbia province of Canada; and Oregon and Washington states of the United States), we find that CFEs pursuing a differentiation strategy are able to balance social, environmental, and financial objectives. Further, recognizing that all CFEs cannot pursue a differentiation strategy, and some may not even have a defined strategic orientation, the paper compares social, environmental, and financial performance of CFEs pursuing a differentiation strategy, a hybrid strategy (a combination of differentiation and cost leadership strategy), and no defined strategy. This analysis reveals that CFEs pursuing a hybrid strategy deliver better financial performance than those with no defined strategy but are similar to those pursuing a differentiation strategy.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".