Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent satellite estimates suggest that planted tree cover rivals, and possibly exceeds, the area of natural reforestation pantropically, challenging longstanding models of forest change. Such estimates underscore a tension between studies of reforestation as an areal expansion of undifferentiated forest cover versus dynamic land-change processes by which forest variously emerges in transformed states. A review of land-change processes bearing on the nature of reforestation would qualify the relative prevalence of planted tree cover, but with caveats. Planted tree cover would be less than half the nominal extent of natural reforestation if including the 29-61% of natural reforestation re-cleared within 15 years and excluding the 25-50% of planted tree-cover entailing extant forest conversion. Planted tree cover would however be comparable to natural reforestation if also discounting the 31-52% of natural reforestation that similarly follows from forest conversion. Satellite-based estimations of reforestation area may now, and should, incorporate such qualifying land-change processes by borrowing from demographic models of population change and including ‘spurious’ reforestation integral to the broader processes of reforestation of interest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".