Assessing potential resource use conflicts between wildlife and recreationists in Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and Haida Heritage Site, located off the northwest coast of British Columbia, represents a remote wilderness and cultural experience for many visitors.Ecological integrity is a priority for Canadian national parks that requires effective management of tourism and visitation, which constitute internal threats to many parks.I developed a GIs-based method to examine patterns of visitor use and identified potential conflict areas by determining how intensively used zones coincided with seabird colonies and Peregrine Falcon eyries.Overnight sites and travel activity are spatially and temporally heterogeneous over the Gwaii Haanas landscape and vary with visitor types.Wildlife sites, near attraction sites, were most susceptible to refuge boundary violations with peaks occurring during July and August, which is consistent with the pattern of visitor entry.Recommendations for park managers are framed within a spectrum of management options and challenges associated with marine reserve management.I extend sincere gratitude and appreciation to my committee members, Dr. Kristina Rothley, Dr. Alton Harestad and Dr. Marlow Pellatt, for their multi-faceted support.Each one offered invaluable insight and a unique perspective throughout the journey.I acknowledge Parks Canada for providing financial
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".