Environmental Ethics: Sustainability, Competition, & Forestry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"This Working Paper is a follow-up to the conference 'Environmental Ethics, Sustainability, Competition, & Forestry.' The conference, held on October 23 and 24 of 1992 at the University of British Columbia, was sponsored by UBC's Centre for Applied Ethics and the Goethe-Intitut Vancouver.\n\n "The conference was organized around the idea that sustainable development and competition are in some sense competing visions of our global future. Nowhere is this potential conflict more salient than in the forestry industry. Canada, and B.C. in particular, shares with Germany a concern for the fate of forests and for the industries based on forest resources. This conference sought to bring together academics from both Canadian and German universities to explore the ethical challenges associated with these competing visions.\n\n "Those attending the conference had the opportunity to hear talks from a wide variety of specialties, ranging from botany to cultural studies to philosophy. Of the talks given, four were developed into papers to be included in this publication. Special thanks go to Dr. Schutt for making his speaking notes available for this purpose."
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".