MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388452860 · doi:10.3390/f14112206

Canada’s Green Gold: Unveiling Challenges, Opportunities, and Pathways for Sustainable Forestry Offsets

2023· article· en· W4388452860 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chunyu Pan, Chong Li, Alexander An, George Deng, Jerry KuiJie Lin, Junran He, Jonelle Fangyu Li, Xilai Zhu, Guomo Zhou, Anil Shrestha, Robert Kozak, Guangyu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsCarbon offsetIndigenousThematic analysisEnvironmental resource managementBusinessSustainabilitySustainable forest managementPolitical scienceEnvironmental planningClimate changeForestryQualitative researchForest managementGeographySociologyEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forestry offsets, recognized for their diverse environmental and social co-benefits, are gaining a growing interest as nature-based solutions to combat climate change. Despite Canada’s extensive forest resources, its potential for carbon credit remains largely untapped. This study aims to unveil the prevailing challenges in developing forestry offsets in Canada and propose potential solutions, drawing on insights from in-depth semi-structured interviews (SSIs) with 23 experts in the field. A qualitative thematic analysis highlighted 14 challenges under four major frequently discussed themes: methodological (37%), social (29%), economic (22%), and implementation challenges (12%). Our findings highlighted the urgency of addressing key obstacles, including the impermanent nature of forestry carbon offsets, substantial public knowledge gaps, uncertainties in the cost-effectiveness impacting financial viability, and the need for enhanced capacity for project implementation. Building on the discussions on the identified challenges, this study further presented a comprehensive analysis of the future directions for Canada, emphasizing the importance of addressing key methodological issues, enhancing public and Indigenous education and engagement, and leveraging advanced technologies and innovative approaches like ton-year accounting for economic viability. This paper delivers pivotal insights that have the potential to shape the direction and integrity of the forestry offset markets in both Canada and globally.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.008
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207