MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388226365 · doi:10.61326/icelis.2023.59

The Roadmap to Achieving Climate Neutrality in Türkiye: A Comprehensive Analysis of Long-Term Forestry Strategies

2023· article· en· W4388226365 on OpenAlexaff
Yusuf Serengil

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon neutralityGreenhouse gasAfforestationClimate changeLand useForest managementForestryNatural resource economicsClimate change mitigationCarbon stockEnvironmental scienceBusinessAgroforestryGeographyEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2021, Türkiye ratified the Paris Agreement and committed to achieving climate neutrality by 2053. As mandated by the agreement, Türkiye submitted its first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and has been conducting simulations to identify alternatives to establish its Long-Term Strategy (LTS). Our study focused on the LULUCF (Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry) sector of Türkiye, mainly focusing on forestry. Our analysis shows that the forests in Türkiye offset approximately 8-10% of the country's total greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, down from over 20% in 2014. This reduction in offset percentage is due to a drop in the removal rate of forests over the last ten years. To achieve climate neutrality, this trend of reduction must be reversed. Recent inventory data shows that forest management is the central activity, with afforestation and other land use activities contributing less than 1%. However, when analyzing their effectiveness, it is important to consider the co-benefits of mitigation policies and measures. Our study concluded that Türkiye should prioritize forest management, including wildfire prevention and improved use of wood products, by investing in research and innovation. The forest products industry should also enhance the added value of wood products and embrace circularity to reduce raw material demand. By reducing the harvest rate, the carbon stock and increment of forests can be enhanced. Acceleration is needed towards achieving sectoral targets to achieve a climate-smart forestry perspective.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Management and Policy→French-language works237,207→