MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098482481

U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics

2001· article· en· W7098482481 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Government (linguistics)BoomLoggingWood productionWood industryForest industryIndustrial production
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report is part of an annual series that presents current and historical information on the production, trade, consumption, and prices of timber products in the United States. The report focuses on national statistics, but includes some data for individual States and regions and for Canada. The data were collected from industry trade associations and government agencies. They are intended for use by forest land managers, forest industries, trade associations, forestry schools, renewable resource organizations, libraries, organizations, individuals in the major timber producing and consuming countries of the world, and the general public. A major use of the data presented here is tracking technological change over time. One of the major technology shifts occurring in the wood-using industry is the substitution of oriented strandboard (OSB) for plywood in the structural panel sector, as well as a shift in plywood production from the west to the south United States. Some data show these shifts. United States production of structural panels totaled 29.4 billion ft in 1999. Production of OSB increased from less than 3 billion ft in 1985 to 11.6 billion ft in 1999. Plywood production was 20.1 billion ft in 1985 before falling to 17.8 billion ft in 1999. The decline in plywood production reflects the continued increase in the OSB share of the traditional plywood market Keywords: production, consumption, import, export April 2001 Howard, James. L. 2001. U.S. timber production, trade consumption, and price statistics 1965 to 1999. Res. Pap. FPL-RP-595. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 90 p. A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pi...

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.025

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207