MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diversification of the forest industries: role of new wood-based products

2018· other· en· W6959526588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJoint Research Centre (European Commission) · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPasture and Agricultural Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurosDiversification (marketing strategy)RevenueProduction (economics)Forest industryPosition (finance)Market penetrationTextile industry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study identifies new wood-based products with considerable potential and attractive markets, including textiles, liquid biofuels, platform chemicals, plastics and packaging. We apply a mixed methods review approach to examine how the position of forest industry in respective value chains determines the production value. Consequently, an assessment is provided as to the degree these emerging wood-based products could compensate for the foreseen decline of graphic paper markets in four major forest industry countries: USA, Canada, Sweden, and Finland. A 1–2% percent market share in selected global markets implies a potential increase in revenues of 18-75 billion euros per annum s in the four selected countries by 2030. This corresponds to 10–43% of the production value of forest industries in these countries in 2016. This range compares to a projected decline of graphic paper industry revenue of 5.5 billion euros by 2030. The respective impact on wood use are manifold, as many of the new products utilize byproducts as feedstock. The impact on primary wood use, almost entirely attributable to the construction and to some extent to textile markets, would be in the range of 15-133 million m3, corresponding to 2-21 % of the current industrial roundwood use in these four countries..

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJoint Research Centre (European Commission)Same topicPasture and Agricultural SystemsFrench-language works237,207