Niet alleen natuur: in bos groeit hout : Pleidooi voor een herwaardering van houtoogst in Nederlandse bossen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dutch forests, despite their small size, play a crucial role in biodiversity onservation, recreation, and carbon cycling. However, their role in the provisioning of wood is increasingly disregarded or even rejected.This essay advocates a renewed appreciation of sustainable wood harvesting as a key resource for the bioeconomy. Wood harvest in the Netherlands has declined by 25% in the past decade due to complex regulations and negative perceptions. Yet, the demand for wood is rising. Misconceptions equating wood harvesting with deforestation or destruction of nature hinder balanced forest management. In reality, responsible harvesting can contribute to carbon mitigation and nature conservation. Historically, Dutch forests have been shaped by human intervention, and continued forest management - including wood harvest - can enhance both ecological and economicbenefits. Rather than relying almost exclusively onimports, the Netherlands should integrate sustainablewood production into its forest policy, ensuring amultifunctional approach that balances conservation,recreation, and resource use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.019 |
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; both teacher heads 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".