Bibliographic record
Abstract
ADDRESSING LOCAL VALUES AND CONFLICT THROUGH COMMUNITY FORESTRY In developed regions, a recent interest in community forestry can be seen as a response to economic, environmental and social problems associated with conventional forest management. As described in the earlier chapters of this book, community forestry demands the broader integration of societal values and interests in forest governance. Consequently, its implementation in developed regions often requires restructuring the use and control of forest systems. Community forestry supporters see the approach as an opportunity to maintain local livelihoods, public access to open spaces and resources, and environmental conservation goals, as well as fairness and transparency in decision-making processes. Based on principles of local control, benefits and values, in theory community forestry offers an integrated approach to community development that is reinforced by parallel grassroots movements for participatory governance and civic environmentalism. The stories in this book relay the bottom-up efforts of community groups, senior governments and forestry professionals (Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6) seeking an alternative to the status quo. Examining the history of community forestry in the eastern United States (Chapter 3) and Canada (Chapter 4) reveals that similar motivations were behind early community forestry programs and policies (i.e. concerns for remediation and conservation prompted by earlier poor land use practices) and that the two regions had a similar trajectory with respect to the rise and spread of municipal models (i.e. town and county forests). Community forestry experience in North America shows that, time after time, the community forestry concept has been revived during periods of heightened concern for ecological degradation, social conflict and economic disaster – when it seemed all else had failed and a unique or innovative institutional response was needed.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".