MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4290994237 · doi:10.5558/tfc2022-002

Enhancing forest resilience: Advances in Ontario’s wild tree seed transfer policy

2022· article· en· W4290994237 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Betty van Kerkhof, Ken A. Elliott, Pengxin Lu, Daniel W. McKenney, William C. Parker, John Pedlar, Ngaire Roubal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceOntario Forest Research InstituteMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Resources CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and ForestryMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsClimate changeEnvironmental resource managementProcurementPsychological resilienceResilience (materials science)Tree (set theory)Process (computing)ProductivityPolicy developmentNatural resource managementGeographyNatural resourceBusinessEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEcologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMarketingBiologyEconomicsPsychologyPublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate is a critical driver in shaping patterns of tree distribution and productivity in Canadian forests. Canada’s climate is changing and, as a result, tree populations may become maladapted to the climate at their current growing locations. In 2020, Ontario updated its tree seed transfer policy to respond to the evolving natural, operational, scientific, and policy environments, including a changing climate. Collaboration among federal and provincial science, operations, and policy staff was essential to update the policy, which involved a custom climate similarity analysis, a related assessment of critical seed transfer distances, various engagement efforts to assess end-user receptivity, and the development of an online interactive tool to allow users to explore seed transfer options under climate change. Here we describe several factors considered during the policy update, major steps in the update process, and highlights of the outcome. The intent of this effort is to support other jurisdictions considering similar changes and to emphasize the need for a changing culture in seed procurement and 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

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207