Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the exception of panel products, production of all other forestry products increased in the June 2009 quarter when compared with the March 2009 quarter. Of note were significant increases in roundwood removals and sawn timber volumes. Export log volumes increased to all major trading partners except Japan, with exports to China triple the level recorded in the June 2008 quarter. Export earnings also increased significantly for this latest quarter although the free-on-board price (in NZ $ terms) was negatively impacted by a strengthened NZ dollar as well as increased shipping costs over the quarter. Harvesting activity The recorded total roundwood removals increased 1.1 million cubic metres between the March and June quarters of 2009 to an estimated 5.4 million cubic metres. This is a 26.7 percent rise from the March 2009 quarter and 13.0 percent higher than the level recorded in the June 2008 quarter, making it the largest harvested quarterly volume since the September 2003 quarter. This latest increase also stands in contrast to the recorded harvest declines of the previous two quarters. Export logs and poles Log exports increased by 920 000 cubic metres to 2.5 million cubic metres, up 59.5 percent on the March 2009 quarter and 61.9 percent on the June 2008 quarter. The increase in log exports was led by exports to China, up 79.5 percent on the previous quarter with this latest rise following on from steady increases since the December 2007 quarter. Compared with the June 2008 quarter, China has increased consumption from 30.5 percent of total log export volumes to 60.8 percent in the June 2009 quarter. Sharp increases from the previous quarter’s exports are also noted for Korea (up 47.2 percent to 631 000 cubic metres) and India (up 125.3 percent to 231 000 cubic metres). In this latest quarter Japan is the only major trading partner to have recorded a decrease in export volumes. When compared with the March 2009 quarter, New Zealand log exports to Japan were down 59.2 percent (to 66 000 cubic metres) and down 63.5 percent compared with the level recorded in the June 2008 quarter. New Zealand’s log market has continued to be driven by China’s growth. China’s central government has, so far this calendar year,
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.608 | 0.538 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".