MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029486261 · doi:10.2307/3536727

Chilkoot: An Adventure in Ecotourism

2003· article· en· W2029486261 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elke Wind, Allan Ingelson, Michael Mahoney, R.C. Scace

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthwestern Naturalist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArchaeology and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdventureEcotourismGeographyTourismComputer scienceArchaeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A trail book unlike any other, Chilkoot: An Adventure in Ecotourism is a richly woven insight into the Chilkoot Trail and the region straddling the American-Canadian border in the Alaska and British Columbia. The authors present the trail in three interrelated parts. They begin by describing the trail as a classic example of modern ecotourism with reference to management practices and user expectations, responses, and satisfaction. Then they show the amazing history of the trail. They conclude with an illustrated presentation of their own experiences. The Chilkoot has a long and varied history: it was an important trade route of the coastal Tlingit people; it attracted worldwide notoriety during the frantic Klondike Gold Rush days; and now it has an international reputation among recreational hikers. Today, Chilkoot is an icon. It is thirty-three miles (53 km) of dense forest, rugged mountain, golden sand dune, rushing river, and sylvan lake settings stretching from Alaskan salt tidewater to freshwater Lake Bennett at the headwaters of the Yukon River in British Columbia. Rich in natural and cultural history and protected entirely as parkland, the Chilkoot forms a major portion of the extensive Klondike Gold Rush International Historical Park.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.003

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthwestern NaturalistSame topicArchaeology and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207