{"id":"W1981706011","doi":"10.1139/x10-220","title":"Constraints to participation in Canadian forestry advisory committees: a gendered perspective","year":2011,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Canadian Journal of Forest Research","topic":"Forest Management and Policy","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":18,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Manitoba; Agriculture Food and Rural Development; University of Saskatchewan; University of Alberta","funders":"","keywords":"Disadvantage; Community forestry; Forest management; Advisory committee; Political science; Perspective (graphical); Public relations; Sociology; Public administration; Forestry; Geography; Law","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"codex-gemma-dda1882f352a","candidate_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"consensus_categories":["insufficient_payload"],"category_scores_codex":[0.001517546,0.0001165397,0.0001556796,0.001183233,0.0002233003,0.00006243213,0.0005899057,0.00008490124,0.008498236],"category_scores_gemma":[0.0005448498,0.0001148237,0.00005687771,0.000891605,0.0006113135,0.0002766148,0.00004844608,0.0004854762,0.001049144],"about_ca_system_candidate":false,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.002198437,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.001557658,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":true,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.9515767,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.9980024,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9977635,0.0001780269,0.0003109155,0.0001860807,0.0003961318,0.001165359],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.9971702,0.00005400564,0.00006039792,0.0002299827,0.000108249,0.002377149],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.00002623355,0.00002469077,0.9588773,0.000004392225,0.00001361052,0.0004895728,0.009428816,0.0003418492,0.000006087551,0.008414628,0.02069737,0.0016754],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0003176532,0.0002622175,0.9750779,0.00003798793,0.000004929457,0.00002233362,0.001632729,0.0001074057,0.00001721247,0.005136142,0.01725066,0.0001328446],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.8088904,0.00003454183,0.000009027297,0.001060843,0.00008722109,0.0002709179,0.00001114883,0.000002351966,0.1896335],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9983736,0.000005326527,0.0002455867,0.0002552182,0.00006581544,0.00001431643,0.000001798543,0.00001571669,0.001022595],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.1894832,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.9997287,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.09755092746082727,"score_gpt":0.3498912564944533,"score_spread":0.252340329033626,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}