MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403081148 · doi:10.24908/ohi.v2i2.17803

One Health, One Forest: Harnessing Reclaimed Wood as a Sustainable Solution

2024· article· en· W4403081148 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica Raw, Cameron Woodman, Guntaas Kaur

Bibliographic record

VenueOne Health Innovation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessEnvironmental scienceAgroforestrySustainable forest managementLand reclamationWaste managementPulp and paper industryGeographyForest managementEngineeringArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deforestation is a multifaceted and wicked problem characterized by its complexity and resistance to straightforward solutions. The issue is driven by human activities and has severe ecological, socio-economic, and climatic consequences. Between 1990 and 2015, approximately 129 million hectares of forest were lost globally, a trend contributing to biodiversity loss, increased carbon dioxide emissions, and climate change. In Canada, deforestation due to logging significantly impacts the boreal forests, with consequences such as habitat fragmentation affecting species like the threatened boreal caribou. The Canadian logging industry aims to provide essential raw materials while fostering economic growth and employment, supplying critical resources for sawmills, planing mills, shingle mills, and pulp and paper industries. Despite economic benefits, logging, particularly clearcutting, disrupts natural forest regeneration, soil composition, and water cycles, leading to long-term ecological consequences. The One Health approach, integrating human, non-human animal, and environmental health, is proposed to address this issue sustainably. Actions like those by Forests Ontario and Evergreen focus on reforestation and urban greening, while companies like Consolidated Pallet Co. promote wood recycling. This action plan showcases the potential for community-driven solutions to reduce environmental footprints, enhance sustainability, and foster economic and social well-being.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.240 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOne Health InnovationSame topicBioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207