MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1924176420 · doi:10.21971/p7t014

Alberta's Resources Negotiations and Bannf and Jasper National Parks

2008· article· en· W1924176420 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christopher Gainor

Bibliographic record

VenueCrossing boundaries · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmerican Environmental and Regional History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkNegotiationGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsResource (disambiguation)Political scienceGeographyPublic administrationWildlifeEnvironmental planningEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementArchaeologyLawEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Government of Canada retained control of Crown lands and mineral and water rights in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba until 1930 when they were transferred to the three provincial governments as a result of agreements reached in 1929. In the case of Alberta, the agreement also settled the boundaries for Banff and Jasper national parks. The national parks discussions helped establish the principle that resource extraction would not take place in national parks anywhere in Canada. This paper examines the political background to the discussions over national parks and the process for setting the boundaries of these parks, with an emphasis on a report on park boundaries that addressed resource development and wildlife management in and near the parks, issues that parks administrators continue to face today.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0220.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCrossing boundariesSame topicAmerican Environmental and Regional HistoryFrench-language works237,207