Evaluating Collaborative Planning: A Case Study of the Morice Land and Resource Management Plan
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
Collaborative planning is widely used in British Columbia, Canada as a decision-making tool for land use management. This study uses a research design synthesized from the relevant literature to evaluate the Morice Land and Resources Management Planning process, which began in 2002. After 18 months of negotiation between local stakeholders, the Morice table produced a consensus agreement for land use in the region. Unlike other processes in BC, a two-tiered negotiation model was used to engage First Nations on a government-to-government basis. This study demonstrates a need to revisit the two-tier process design in a way that continues to respect First Nations’ constitutional rights while also satisfying non-aboriginal stakeholders. Despite room for improvement, the Morice process was an overall success and generated important environmental and socio-economic benefits for stakeholders. This case study joins a growing body of research supporting collaborative planning as an effective land use management practice.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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