‘To Have Your Cake and Eat It Too?’ Utility, Ecology, Equity and Québec’s New Forest Act, 2001
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The new Québec Forest Act appears to give the provincial government a stronger position as umpire in the forest sector. A policy community interpretation suggests that the government has created a mechanism for more input from other stakeholders than the traditional powerhouse, the forest industry, and that progress is being made towards a more socially and ecologically sustainable form of forestry. Yet a closer examination of the new Forest Act reveals a more uncertain situation. When exploring the outcome of the Forest Act thus far it can be argued that it has not challenged the dominant position of an “economic development” coalition. The dominance of this coalition is reflected in the increasing control of forest lands in fewer hands. There is also evidence that public participation serves as a vehicle for the forest industry and the government to feed the public “information” without taking into account other participants’ views. An environmental coalition has made some gains, but the promotion of increased forest yield may compromise the protection of the forest environment. An autonomous or First Nations development coalition has also made some gains, though these are principally confined to the northern Cree and leave most other groups unaffected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".