MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986885649 · doi:10.5558/tfc77077-1

From fur to fir: Lessons for the BC forest industry from the anti-fur campaign

2001· article· en· W1986885649 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Heather Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoycottGovernment (linguistics)SustainabilityCertificationPolitical scienceEconomic growthGeographyEconomyPoliticsEcologyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BC's forest industry is feeling internal and international pressure to change its practices, and there is an increasing move to certification, amidst debates about preferred certification modes. This reflects changes in the economies of many of Canada's rural and northern communities, which have traditionally been dependent upon natural resources, but are now coming under pressure from the global community – not only in economic terms, but in terms of social values. As demography changes, and with it, social and economic values, this pressure is likely to continue. The Canadian North first felt such pressure as a result of the European boycott of the Newfoundland seal hunt, and then anti-trapping boycotts that have occurred periodically since then. These campaigns have had a profound effect on the lifestyles, cultures and sustainability of the northern communities. Over almost three decades, the government, non-government organizations and people of the North have had to learn to deal with and respond to these external campaigns that threaten them. The lessons they have learned about the nature of these campaigns could be useful to the province of British Columbia, which is now coming under increasing pressure from Europe and the US regarding its forestry practices. This paper outlines the evolution and characteristics of the international campaigns against sealing and trapping, as well as the experiences of northerners in dealing with them. It goes on to apply these lessons to the BC situation, with some recommendations for appropriate responses. Fundamentally, these campaigns reflect changing demographic and social characteristics and values in North America and Europe, and the changing relationship of people to natural resources, but they also raise questions about fair reflection of the variety of stakeholder interests in resource decision-making, and the limits on definition of "stakeholders." Key words: Boycotts, resource use

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0260.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207