MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402942063 · doi:10.3828/whpeh.63861480327330

‘How About the Threatened Timber Famine’: Timber Merchants, Wood Shortage and Global Surveys on Timber Production and Consumption

2024· article· en· W4402942063 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Castonguay

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and History · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThreatened speciesEconomic shortageFamineConsumption (sociology)Production (economics)LoggingNatural resource economicsAgricultural economicsAgroforestryBusinessEnvironmental scienceForestryGeographyEconomicsEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the late nineteenth century, concerns about timber scarcity and forest depletion in industrialising countries contributed to the production of forest inventories and timber trade statistics on a planetary scale. Warnings about the eventual exhaustion of the North American pine forest erupted in the British trade press, at a time of intense public discussions about the natural limits of coal supply and the implications for the industrial and economic supremacy of Great Britain. It was in this context that the British government launched an effort to inventory forest areas and compile statistical data on timber production and consumption in various national settings. This paper focuses alternately on the perspectives of timber merchants, state representatives and scientists, to understand how international inventories of forest resources and global surveys on timber trade emerged from debates about a timber famine during the integration of the world economy at the end of the nineteenth century.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.027
Scholarly communication0.0090.027
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and HistorySame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207