“How far do you have to walk to find peace again?”: A case study of First Nations' operational values for a community forest in<scp>N</scp>ortheast<scp>B</scp>ritish<scp>C</scp>olumbia,<scp>C</scp>anada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper we report upon research conducted with two First Nations located in B ritish C olumbia, C anada (Saulteau First Nations and West Moberly First Nations) on their preferences regarding forest operations within their community forest license. We confirmed the forestry‐related values previously documented in other research, and we are able to determine specific parameters with regard to the protection or integration of these values, particularly those that are ecologically based. In addition, we identify significant cultural values expected in forestry planning and management, their parameters, as well as values not commonly discussed within the literature, such as concerns over non‐indigenous access and conflicting, overlapping resource tenures. We conclude that further research, which accounts for and readily accommodates indigenous values and preferences, is needed to examine North American indigenous participation in both community forest tenures and in developing forest operation planning.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it