MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Objectives of improving forest relations in Russia, taking into account foreign experience

2024· article· en· W4411693738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marina A. Letovaltseva

Bibliographic record

VenueMarket economy problems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subject/topic. Our country has significant reserves of forest resources and a well-developed timber industry. Therefore, it is extremely important to creatively use the experience of regulating forest relations in states that have similar natural resources and forms of state forest management to the Russian Federation. Goals/objectives. The purpose of the study is to summarize the experience of the USA, Finland, Norway, Canada and other countries, where the interaction of the state and private business, taking into account the interests of the population, is the basis of forest legislation, to assess the possibilities of its application in the Russian Federation. Methodology. The methodological basis of the article is based on general scientific methods – synthesis, deduction and statistical methods of information processing. The materials of the official websites of state bodies in the field of forest legislation of the studied countries, as well as data from the Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat), served as an information base. Results. The rating of states by the share of the timber industry in the structure of manufacturing industries and its contribution to the formation of industrial production is considered. Based on the analysis of state programs for the development of the timber industry, the possibility of applying specific best foreign practices for the conditions of the Russian Federation has been determined. Conclusions/significance. As a result of the study, it was determined that the existing successful forestry policy in developed countries does not give reason to assume that it will also be effective in Russia, but we believe that comparing different management strategies and practices abroad is useful in order to select them for use in our country. Application. The results of the study can be applied in practice in the development of regional timber industry development programs for the sustainable development of the forest industry.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designObservational
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 venueMarket economy problems→Same topicForest Management and Policy→French-language works237,207→