MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7098071086

Forest management planning strategy for bioenergy in remote aboriginal communities

2000· article· en· W7098071086 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Sustainable forest managementForest managementGovernment (linguistics)BioenergyBiomass (ecology)Resource management (computing)Sustainable managementCommunity forestry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a framework for community-based forest management planning for bioenergy in remote Aboriginal communities in Canada. Modelled after work done by the National Aboriginal Forestry Association and provincial government agencies, the proposed approach to forest management planning provides the necessary information and format to develop a long-term and integrated resource management plan. It is designed to be adapted as part of a small-scale forestry operation to supply wood-chips for burning in biomass heating facilities. The framework allows individual communities to modify the format to suit their needs, and recognises and plans accordingly for the unique circumstances and characteristics of remote Aboriginal communities. The framework includes information for completing apian including: period, land description, history, maps, biomass and non-timber inventories, sustainable harvest levels, activity schedules, monitoring, and review. Aboriginal involvement in broad district-level forest management plans is discussed in relation to and comparison with participation requirements for management planning for community-based bioenergy projects.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→