MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1949947267

Co-Management: An Aboriginal Response to Frontier Development

2001· article· en· W1949947267 on OpenAlex
David Natcher

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthern review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestructuringPoliticsDecentralizationFrontierCornerstoneState (computer science)Independence (probability theory)Government (linguistics)Resource (disambiguation)Public administrationIndigenousFlourishingPolitical scienceResource management (computing)Power (physics)Public relationsSociologyPolitical economyLawGeographyComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recognizing that socio-political change will not be achieved through isolation and independence, Aboriginal communities from across Canada are pursuing multi-actor frameworks of co-operation in an effort to redefine existing institutions of power and authority. The extent to which this restructuring is viable has involved the implementation of co-management institutions that have redefined methods of resource management specifically, and local-state relations more generally. That is, beyond specific resource-related issues, institutions of co-management are proving to have broader social, legal and political influence in addressing Aboriginal claims in the state system. Thus the decentralization of state control over Aboriginal homelands should be seen as a cornerstone in the much larger agenda for Aboriginal self-determination. Pulling examples from across Canada, this paper demonstrates that institutions of co-management, between Aboriginal resource users and government agencies, are evolving, and in many cases flourishing in response to an array of resource management issues, often stemming from situations of conflict.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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