MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W991981978

Чистая приведенная стоимость как индикатор экономической эффективности в лесном хозяйстве

2015· article· ru· W991981978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Шальнев Андрей Сергеевич, Дегтев Вячеслав Васильевич

Bibliographic record

VenueВестник Томского государственного педагогического университета · 2015
Typearticle
Languageru
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexRevenueLoggingReforestationNet present valueBusinessInvestment (military)Forest managementNet profitForestryNet incomeProfit (economics)Context (archaeology)Environmental resource managementNatural resource economicsFinanceEconomicsGeographyProduction (economics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article explains the use of the net present value for the evaluation of the effectiveness of forest management strategies for specific sites. In Russian practice, this indicator is mainly used for the evaluation of investment projects, but in forestry developed countries such as Finland and Canada for several decades now this index is used to evaluate the effectiveness of management of forest areas and planning for logging and reforestation on them. This is due to the fact that in the forestry sector, as well as in investment projects a great role is played by the factor of time, i. e. flows of revenues and expenses can be considerably spaced apart in time. This means that the use of indicators such as net income, profit, profitability, etc. do not allow to obtain complete information and give distorted results, as the time factor is not taken into account. Using an integrated model of economic evaluation in the context of strategies may also lead to an increase in the volume of selective logging, because their benefits can be assessed more clearly.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.009

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueВестник Томского государственного педагогического университетаSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207