MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241469285 · doi:10.1553/kioesop_009s1

Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Biomass Production – Challenges in view of an emerging bioeconomy

2018· article· en· W4241469285 on OpenAlexaff
Viktor J. Bruckman, Alexander M. Evans, Heljä‐Sisko Helmisaari, Inge Stupak, Brian Titus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersÖsterreichischen Akademie der WissenschaftenStrong
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceForestryEnvironmental scienceArtGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

KIOES Opinions werden von der Kommission für Interdisziplinäre Ökologische Studien (KIÖS) der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (ÖAW) publiziert. Die KIÖS publiziert darin aktuelle Diskussionen und Statements ihrer Mitglieder oder ihres Personals zu fachlich relevanten Themen in unregelmäßigen Abständen. Zielgruppe sind unter anderem Wissenschaftler, politische Entscheidungsträger und die Öffentlichkeit. Meinugen und Standpunkte, die in den KIOES Opinions zum Ausdruck gebracht werden, sind alleinig jene des jeweiligen Autors/der Autoren und decken sich nicht unbedingt mit jenen der KIÖS oder der ÖAW.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.314
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207