MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997803728 · doi:10.1080/19390459.2011.607959

The Private Sector on Public Land: Policy Implications of a SWOT Analysis of Banff National Park

2011· article· en· W1997803728 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the 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

VenueJournal of Natural Resources Policy Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicStrategic Planning and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsNational parkSWOT analysisTourismThrivingPrivate sectorWildernessSustainabilityEnvironmental resource managementNature tourismPolitical scienceBusinessEnvironmental planningGeographyEcotourismPublic administrationEconomic growthEconomicsSociologyEcologyMarketingSocial scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Banff National Park located in the Canadian Rocky Mountains is in many ways a paradox: protected wilderness with a thriving private sector. While some argue that these are incompatible, others welcome the commercial presence within the park as a way to complement nature-based tourism and provide services for local residents in the town of Banff. The objective of this research is to use a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threat (SWOT) analysis to determine how to support the business sector in Banff National Park within a framework of national park regulations and the imperative need for sustainability.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.221 · 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