MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W130122881

Understanding recreational use of the Western Newfoundland Model Forest

2000· dissertation· en· W130122881 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Jean Lundrigan

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2000
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationSocioeconomic statusGeographyRecreational useForestryForest managementSocioeconomicsScale (ratio)Environmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceCartographySociologyDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recreational participation, environmental attitudes, and knowledge, of Western Newfoundland Model Forest residents were examined through the use of a mail survey. Environmental attitudes were measured with the New Environmental Paradigm scale, as well as questions about environmental issues inside the model forest. Attitudes and knowledge were used to discriminate between consumptive recreationists, nonconsumptive recreationists, and nonparticipants. Results indicated that consumptive recreationists were more knowledgeable about the model forest than either nonconsumptive recreationists or nonparticipants. While it was anticipated that consumptive recreationists would have less environmentally positive attitudes than the other two groups, no substantial differences were found. This socioeconomic study was the first of its kind to be carried out in the Western Newfoundland Model Forest, and implications of the findings for forestry management are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.226
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.027 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)Same topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207