Workshop on Sustainable Tourism and Whale Watching in North America: A Baja-to-Bering Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
he North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation(CEC) convened an international workshop in La Paz, Baja CaliforniaSur,Mexico,fromMarch22to23,2001.Theworkshop’sstatedobjectiveswere to assess the potential for sustainable tourism to be a tool forbiodiversity conservation, to develop a framework for sustainablewhale watching in 1 of 14 CEC priority regions (from Baja California,Mexico, to the Bering Sea) as a case study, and to present preliminaryresults of the state and extent of nature-based tourism in North America(North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 2001).Stakeholders were invited from Canada, the United States, and Mexicoand represented local governments, nongovernmental organizations,local communities, the tourism industry, tour operators, and academicsectors.The CEC selected whale watching in North America as a case studyfor the workshop to build on conservation initiatives throughout NorthAmerica. The relevant initiatives to foster conservation and to protectand enhance the North American environment are as follows:•
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".