MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7137636229

CINTRAFOR Working Paper 90

2016· other· en· W7137636229 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shelley L. Gardner, Ivan Eastin

Bibliographic record

VenueResearchWorks at the University of Washington (University of Washington) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInvestment (military)SubsidyLegislationLand tenureForest managementProduction (economics)DecreeProperty rights
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this paper is to provide objective and reliable in formation about Chile’s forestry sector and its current and future role in the international forest products industry. The contents should provide a well-rounded view of forestry and associated issues in Chile and would be well suited to someone looking to gain insight on this topic, update their knowledge of the subject, compare Chile to other countries of interest, or begin to understand investment opportunities in Chile. While the document does provide investment information, someone seriously considering investing in Chile would most likely want to undertake a more thorough investigation of issues specifically related to their strategic plan and some appropriate resources for this have been cited. Chile’s favorable soil and climatic conditions allow for a rapid growth rate and production of marketable wood. They have an increasing plantation resource base (mostly radiata pine (Pinus radiata) and Eucalyptus species) and potential to expand their forestland further. Decree Law 701, now refocused from plantations and large landowner support to subsidizing planting and trimming costs for small landowners, has been the major and often criticized piece of forest management legislation since its induction in 1974. Not yet enacted, the “Recovery of the Native Forests and Their Promotion in Forestry” seeks to subsidize native forest management as well. Property rights are more respected for plantations, there is virtually no land tenure for native forest and what ownership does exist is hard to track. Chile’s forest industry has contributed about 3% of the total GDP over the last 15 years and made up 10% of all exports in Chile and 2% of the world trade in forest products. Their primary products consist mainly of roundwood, lumber, fiberboard, particleboard, wood chips, pulp, and newsprint. As the trend moves more toward secondary products such as sawnwood, molding and millwork, and furniture, they strive to strike a balance between the two. Non-timber forest products, such as sweetbriar rose (Rosa eglanteria), soapbark tree (Quillaja saponaria), and boldo (Peumus boldo), while hard to estimate due to the fragmented market, also significantly contribute to exports and may offer alternatives for more sustainable management. Wood pulp producers have made major investments in modern, low-pollution industrial plants and processing technologies to meet European market demand. Chile’s exports focus makes them a reliable trading partner. Chile’s ability to standardize and harmonize with market demand, share market information, adapt to the Argentinean crisis, and obtain more forest products marketing training; Chile’s geographical location in relation to export markets, wood quality, use of natural resource-based exports as major momentum for economic growth, and technology restrictions; and forest-certification coupled with NGO pressure or boycotts are all potential challenges to the industry and important considerations for investors. The major competitive threats regarding Chile are its likelihood of becoming more competitive in international markets as exports increase, increasing production and exports, and low production costs and labor costs relative to competing nations. Opportunities for countries interested in working with Chile include its positioning to resume higher growth, market-oriented economy, well-diversified international trade, well established State institutions, democratic government, and relatively qualified and ethical labor force. The Chilean government provides active encouragement to private sector forest activity and is seeking to promote foreign direct investment (FDI) to capitalize on developing value-added products. The greatest opportunities include investment in sawmills, pulp plants, wood composite panels, and wood preservation. However, there are potential challenges or serious considerations for prospective investors. There is extreme consolidation of the industry. Empresas Compañía Manufacturera de Papeles y Cartones S.A. (CMPC) of Matte Holding and Angelini forestry own 80% of productive forestland and wield serious political power. There is a relatively small presence of foreign capital compared to the 1980’s. Chile’s production base structuring allowed for better positioning of local groups, so foreign investors associated with local groups, but withdrew when profits decreased. Environmental pressures/restrictions and plantation criticism make it increasingly attractive to divert investments to neighboring countries with fewer restrictions. Chile has gained preferred market access to certain countries by participating in free trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, and tentatively with the European Union (EU). It has bilateral trade agreements with the Andean Pact countries, the Southern Cone Common Market (MERCOSUR) countries, and Central America. It has also received invitations to Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Latin American Integration Association (LAIA), and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Chile actively participates in negotiation of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), but negotiations between Chile and the United States have been held up mainly due to the U.S.’s hesitation to address sensitive agricultural issues.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.612
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0150.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3880.141

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.212 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearchWorks at the University of Washington (University of Washington)French-language works237,207