Use of national forests by Salish‐Kootenai tribal members: Traditional recreation and a legacy of cultural values
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study focused on the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flat‐head Reservation in Montana. Its purpose was three‐fold: (a) to understand the outdoor recreation activities of the Salish‐Kootenai Tribal members in surrounding national forests, (b) to clarify the significance of these outdoor activities to Salish‐Kootenai Tribal members, and (c) to make recommendations to managers regarding how changes occurring on national forests may impact Tribal members’ use of these lands. The study highlights the historical and contemporary challenges American Indians face regarding their use of lands near their reservations. Interviews were conducted with 60 Salish‐Kootenai Tribal members. Results indicate that Tribal members participate in a number of outdoor activities in national forests, including hunting, fishing, berry and mushroom picking, camping, hiking, and collecting medicinal plants. Their participation in these activities is often negatively impacted by two factors: (a) management operations, and (b) a perception of racist behaviour on the part of both managers and non‐American Indians using national forests. Management recommendations are given to balance the needs of forest visitors while respecting and preserving American Indian culture and values.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".