MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W35087188 · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01277-4

Softwood Lumber Dispute with Canada Nears Climax

2016· article· en· W35087188 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
John W. Bohn

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Human Behaviour · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternational tradeNewspaperSupreme courtState (computer science)SubsidyPolitical scienceLawEconomicsEconomic historyEconomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

dispute with Canada regarding softwood lumber ranks as the largest and longest-lasting trade dispute involving the United States. Canada and the United States have battled over alleged Canadian lumber subsidies for over a hundred years. Since 1982, the United States has attempted four times to impose special tariffs or countervailing duties on Canadian imports. The latest effort began in April 2000, and has involved the U.S. courts, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and more than $4 billion in duties. Absent settlement, the case will most likely reach the U.S. Supreme Court's docket by 2007. The case receives little attention in the U.S. press, but in Canada it regularly makes news broadcasts and the front pages of major newspapers. The level of vitriol in the comments of some columnists and officials has caused U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to caution against apocalyptic language. Some Canadian officials have suggested that Canada retaliate against U.S. duties by restricting exports of oil or natural gas, or by levying tariffs on U.S. imports. Besides trade policy and international relations, the case has significant implications for the environment and natural resource use and pricing. U.S. producers and some environmental organizations allege that Canadian softwood lumber policies, by keeping prices below market, have artificially promoted timber harvesting and lumber export, but Canadian governments deny this. While the U.S. and Canadian governments have sporadically discussed possible reforms to the Canadian system that could satisfy U.S. interests, a century of disagreement seems unlikely to vanish in the near future. The dispute has its origins in the vast coniferous (softwood) forests that span Canada from the Pacific coast rainforests of British Columbia in the West to the chilly, windswept Atlantic coasts in the East. Except for the maritime provinces of the East Coast and the southeastern portions of Quebec and Ontario, which colonists settled first and where most land became private property, well over 90 percent of all Canadian forest land belongs to the provincial governments. Unlike the United States, where almost all old-growth timber was logged long ago, the large majority of Canadian timberlands have never been logged.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.568

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0340.005
Scholarly communication0.0150.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.003

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 head0.213
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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Human BehaviourSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207