Assessing approaches to climate-change-related policy formulation in British Columbia's forest sector: The case of the mountain pine beetle epidemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing literature considers how the forest management community will have to adapt to future climate change impacts. Recently in this journal, Spittlehouse and Stewart presented a framework for planning adaptive actions to address forest-related climate change issues. This paper expands on that framework by discussing five policy process approaches that might be used to implement such actions. The policy community approach outlines the complex configuration of policy actors. The policy network approach examines the relationships between those actors on particular issues. The advocacy coalition framework attempts to measure policy change by taking into account the competing policy-oriented belief structures. Agenda setting considers how issues get the attention of politicians. The punctuated equilibrium model attempts to explain how rapid change in government policy direction can alternate with long periods of stability. The authors conclude that understanding the policy process and how recommended policy changes will be realized is as important as identifying issues and the need for change. Examples from the application of these frameworks to British Columbia's mountain pine beetle infestation are highlighted throughout the paper.
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 | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".