Potential Spatial Overlap of Heritage Sites and Protected Areas in a Boreal Region of Northern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under article 8-J of the Convention on Biological Diversity, governments must engage indigenous and local communities in the designation and management of protected areas. A better understanding of the relationship between community heritage sites and sites identified to protect conventional conservation features could inform conservation-planning exercises on indigenous lands. We examined the potential overlap between Gwich'in First Nations' (Northwest Territories, Canada) heritage sites and areas independently identified for the protection of conventional conservation targets. We designed nine hypothetical protected-area networks with different targets for woodland caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou) habitat, high-quality wetland areas, representative vegetation types, water bodies, environmentally significant area, territorial parks, and network aggregation. We compared the spatial overlap of heritage sites to these nine protected-area networks. The degree of spatial overlap (Jaccard similarity) between heritage sites and the protected-area networks with moderate or high aggregation was significantly higher (p < 0.001) than random spatial overlap, whereas the overlap between heritage sites and the protected-area networks with no aggregation was not significant or significantly lower (p < 0.001) than random spatial overlap. Our results suggest that protected-area networks designed to capture conventional conservation features may protect key heritage sites but only if the underlying characteristics of these sites are considered. The Gwich'in heritage sites are highly aggregated and only protected-area networks that had moderate and high aggregation had significant overlap with the heritage sites. We suggest that conventional conservation plans incorporate heritage sites into their design criteria to complement conventional conservation targets and effectively protect indigenous heritage sites.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".