MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096928914

Presented by:

2011· article· en· W7096928914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariable (mathematics)Variable costProduction (economics)Profit (economics)Economies of scaleTechnological changeOmitted-variable biasScale (ratio)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industry analysts have indicated that there is a trend toward more value-added production in the Canadian forest industry. This suggests that the value of output has increased relative to the primary resource costs of production, leaving increased returns available for other production costs. If, however, these other costs out-pace value-added growth, the industry may be in jeopardy as profit levels are diminished. In this paper, I investigate the manner in which economic scale, technological shifts, and price fluctuations affect value-added and variable costs across regions of the Canadian forest industry. By dividing the industry into five producing regions, and assessing the 1965-95 data through regression analysis, I find unique variable relationships. Value-added production tends to exhibit varying degrees scale economies in all forestry sectors and regions. Additionally, significant technological degradation tends to predominate over time. Variable costs tend to be quite sensitive to changes in operational scale and also tend to marginally decline with technological advances. These circumstances, coupled with the variable influences of price changes, may cause variable costs to limit future

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.9280.812

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.191 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForest Management and Policy→French-language works237,207→