A Place-Based, Values-Centered Approach to Managing Recreation on Canadian Crown Lands
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
Many studies of forest values worldwide have focused on “held” values (Brown 1984). We argue that “assigned” values are more suitable for the site-based focus associated with recreation planning. Consideration of public use and recreation values raises many of the issues surrounding place attachment and place identification. We argue that “meaning-based” interpretive approaches to social values elicitation are better suited to collaborative planning than are expert-driven, rational decision-making models. Social science data are rarely specifically located and are difficult to integrate into geographic information system (GIS)-based planning models. In a case study of a Canadian Crown Forest in northwestern Ontario, Canada, we integrate a variety of approaches, including focus groups, valued-place mapping, and surveys, to elicit and spatially represent social values. We introduce the concept of “spatial valuation zones” as a mean of incorporating user-defined social values into forest planning and examine...
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 | 0.000 |
| 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