Maybe National Park: Consultation, Conservation, and Conflict in the Okanagan-Similkameen
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
This article is about the process of making a national park reserve in the South Okanagan - Lower Similkameen region of British Columbia, as reflected in the perspectives of people who live within the community or who are connected to Parks Canada’s decision-making process. For all its local focus, this article rests upon extensive background research: research into the process of making national park nature in Canada; research into land and wildlife management practices; and research on indigenous epistemologies about nature, and the progression of white settler culture in the British Columbia. Still, this article makes its primary contribution through its focus on debates about the proposed national park reserve in the South Okanagan – Lower Similkameen Valley. The article rests on both historical research into the area and interviews with current residents of the valley. Its purpose is to determine how stakeholders feel connected to the land on which they live and how they think that a national park reserve would change their relationship with the land. Ultimately, the article sheds light on and helps to understand the attitudes and opinions towards land management held by stakeholders of those areas being targeted for federal conservation, as well as the conflicts and collusions between residents and Parks Canada policies during such processes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 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) | 0.001 | 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