Public attitudes toward sustainable forest management: Opinions from forest-dependent communities in British Columbia
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
Although public participation is a requirement of sustainable forest management (SFM), it can be difficult for forest managers to obtain broad levels of representation through traditional public participation mechanisms, such as open houses, information sessions, and public advisory groups (PAGs). Some of the difficulties stem from barriers to participation, (e.g., knowledge, time availability, accessibility, and household income). There is a need for social science tools, such as public opinion surveys, to complement existing approaches by soliciting the attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of broad sections of the public: getting closer to “the silent majority.” We examine the opinions of residents of nine forest-dependent communities in British Columbia to better understand attitudes toward public participation in forest management decision making, beliefs about SFM and the appropriateness of certain trade-offs, and perceptions of the role of forest managers. Results suggest a need to develop better methods of engaging and communicating with people beyond the PAGs; to increase the public's knowledge of SFM; and to increase trust in forest companies as stewards of the forest.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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