MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983293290 · doi:10.5558/tfc2012-051

Participatory GIS to mitigate conflicts between reindeer husbandry and forestry in Vilhelmina Model Forest, Sweden

2012· article· en· W1983293290 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Per Sandström, Camilla Sandström, Johan Svensson, Leif Jougda, Karin Baer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizen journalismHerdingProcess (computing)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningForest managementGeographyAnimal husbandryBusinessLand useComponent (thermodynamics)ForestryAgroforestryComputer scienceEcologyAgricultureEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To improve communication between reindeer-herders and other land users, we developed and implemented a system to produce reindeer husbandry plans together with Sami reindeer-herding communities. A central component of our communications strategy was the introduction and use of a participatory GIS (pGIS). We evaluated the potential and limitations of pGIS as a tool for collaborative learning. We concluded that by merging traditional and scientific knowledge in a pGIS, the process of spatial communication has contributed to a more inclusive planning process, and to improved knowledge-sharing. Furthermore, the process has contributed to a more efficient long-term perspective where land use planning focuses on key areas but with solutions applied to the landscape. The Model Forest offered an appropriate platform to facilitate the process.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207