MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097578134

Environmental Management 001 \\ 0. \\ 007 /s00267-008-9\\93-4 Human Dimensions of Forest Disturbance by Insects: An International Synthesis

2008· article· en· W7097578134 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisturbance (geology)Bark beetleContext (archaeology)Forest managementPeninsulaResource (disambiguation)Resource management (computing)Logging
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ecological disturbances of forests by insects have a complex array of associated human dimensions presenting complications for natural resource decision making and relationships between stakeholders and man-agers. This article discusses the human context of forest disturbances by insects by reviewing four cases of bark beetle forest disturbance from British Columbia in Canada, Bavarian Forest National Park in Germany, the Kenai Peninsula in Alaska, and the north central region of Col-orado. Findings and lessons learned from these studies are outlined along with their implications for managing forest disturbances by insects in general. Conclusions focus on the need to assess the broad array of impacts and risks perceived by local residents and the capacity for local action and involvement in managing forest disturbances. Communication and interaction between resource manag-ers and local stakeholders can facilitate the identification of management priorities and potentially reduce some of the risks associated with forest disturbances by insects.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1340.006

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 head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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