Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to evaluate a series of policy actions of Canadian federal government toward sustainable forest management in 1990s. A couple of provinces are also examined by means of analyzing legislative initiatives as well as conducting investigation into their managed forests. It is found that strong policy direction of federal government is well materialized on institutions and documentations, such as "Canadian Council of Forest Ministers" and "National Forest Strategy". Federal initiatives are successful for leading provincial governments to make or amend forestry related laws. Regulation Respecting Standards of Forest Management for Forests in the Public Domain in Quebec and Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Act are the vital examples. The author visited several forests in Quebec, Alberta, and BC in 1998 and 2002. The impression of managed forest in Quebec was not so nice because of large scale clear-cut. but that in BC coast region was very good because of the existence of preserved old growth forests and newly developed harvesting system called variable retention. Situations of the other forests were in between those two examples. In conclusion, forest practices in Canada today are improving and mostly acceptable as the name of sustainable forest management.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".