MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405489747 · doi:10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100758

Arboricultural codes of ethics lack protection for trees, wildlife, and biodiversity: A review of codes from national and international professional associations

2024· review· en· W4405489747 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueTrees Forests and People · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityWildlifeWildlife tradeEthical codePolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmental resource managementGeographyLawBiologyEcologyEnvironmental sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Conservation and environmental protection are important to many arborists and urban foresters. • Arboricultural professional associations have codes of ethics that regulate professional members. • Environmental themes are underrepresented in existing codes of ethics. • Adherence to laws is addressed generally, rather than adherence to specific environmental laws. • Professional associations may be limited in their ability to respond to unethical actions. Arboriculture practices have the potential to negatively impact the natural environment, including through the pruning or removal of trees with cavities or hollows, the misuse of pesticides, and operations that are injurious to wildlife. Mitigating approaches have been limited by market disincentives, under-enforcement, and voluntary best management practices and standards. For arborists in professional associations, codes of ethics (COEs) may have the potential to improve environmentalism within arboriculture while ensuring public trust in the associations themselves. To determine how environmental protection is discussed in arboricultural COEs, we conducted a review of nine COEs from seven national and international arboricultural professional associations, coding for environmental themes and legal/regulatory requirements. Seven COEs included a total of twelve environmentally related themes, most commonly discussing trees (n=8) and the environment (n=5). Wildlife and urban forest health were not mentioned. No COE referenced environmental laws, although six COEs required adherence with laws generally. The lack of specific prohibitions or mandates on environmentally friendly practices may allow practitioners to take advantage of COE loopholes, which would allow environmentally negative practice that could not be disciplined by an ethics committee unless the code was revised. While an alternative means of environmental governance through COEs might examine whether professional members adhered to local laws and regulations, associations may face difficulties in reviewing and properly applying legislation in disciplining their members, particularly when international associations must review legislation outside of the ethics committee's region(s) of practice. We provide recommendations for improving ethics programs, including five suggested additions for COEs.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.488
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.277 · 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