MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387472670 · doi:10.1111/brv.13022

Convergence and divergence in science and practice of urban and rural forest restoration

2023· article· en· W4387472670 on OpenAlexaff
João Paulo Romanelli, Max R. Piana, Valentin H. Klaus, Pedro H. S. Brancalion, Carolina Murcia, Françoise Cardou, Kiri Joy Wallace, Cristina Adams, Philip A. Martin, Philip J. Burton, Heida L. Diefenderfer, Elise S. Gornish, John A. Stanturf, Menilek Beyene, João Paulo Bispo Santos, Ricardo Ribeiro Rodrigues, Marc W. Cadotte

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Northern British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsRestoration ecologyForest restorationUrban forestEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningForest managementDivergence (linguistics)Convergence (economics)Environmental restorationEcologyBusinessGeographyForest ecologyEnvironmental scienceForestryEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest restoration has never been higher on policymakers' agendas. Complex and multi-dimensional arrangements across the urban-rural continuum challenge restorationists and require integrative approaches to strengthen environmental protection and increase restoration outcomes. It remains unclear if urban and rural forest restoration are moving towards or away from each other in practice and research, and whether comparing research outcomes can help stakeholders to gain a clearer understanding of the interconnectedness between the two fields. This study aims to identify the challenges and opportunities for enhancing forest restoration in both urban and rural systems by reviewing the scientific evidence, engaging with key stakeholders and using an urban-rural forest restoration framework. Using the Society for Ecological Restoration's International Principles as discussion topics, we highlight aspects of convergence and divergence between the two fields to broaden our understanding of forest restoration and promote integrative management approaches to address future forest conditions. Our findings reveal that urban and rural forest restoration have convergent and divergent aspects. We emphasise the importance of tailoring goals and objectives to specific contexts and the need to design different institutions and incentives based on the social and ecological needs and goals of stakeholders in different regions. Additionally, we discuss the challenges of achieving high levels of ecological restoration and the need to go beyond traditional ecology to plan, implement, monitor, and adaptively manage restored forests. We suggest that rivers and watersheds could serve as a common ground linking rural and urban landscapes and that forest restoration could interact with other environmental protection measures. We note the potential for expanding the creative vision associated with increasing tree-containing environments in cities to generate more diverse and resilient forest restoration outcomes in rural settings. This study underscores the value of integrative management approaches in addressing future forest conditions across the urban-rural continuum. Our framework provides valuable insights for policymakers, researchers, and decision-makers to advance the field of forest restoration and address the challenges of restoration across the urban-rural continuum. The rural-urban interface serves as a convergence point for forest restoration, and both urban and rural fields can benefit from each other's expertise.

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)0.100
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.072
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1000.072
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.063
Scholarly communication0.0170.013
Open science0.0030.015
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietySame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207