Identifying indicators of community sustainability in the Robson Valley, British Columbia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper outlines a method of developing indicators of well-being in small, forest-based communities. It also describes some specific measures of well-being in a particular forest-based community in the Robson Valley Forest District, British Columbia. In this project, we attempted to strike a balance between relying on locally obtained information—collected through workshops, interviews, and a mail survey—and information obtained from the social science literature. We took a broad-based approach toward indicator development by identifying goals and indicators pertaining to the entire region. Our paper explores this theoretical orientation in some detail and then provides an account of the dialogical methods used to identify community-based indicators. Of the six community goals we identified, we discuss “maintaining community capacity” at length by examining the empirical data from five indicators and then drawing some conclusions about the status of community capacity in the Robson Valley.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it