MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070547599 · doi:10.1177/1086026604270636

The Impact of Economic Development in James Bay, Canada

2004· article· en· W2070547599 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gail Whiteman

Bibliographic record

VenueOrganization & Environment · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrassrootsBayEnvironmental planningSustainable developmentBaseline (sea)Economic impact analysisPolitical scienceEmpirical researchEnvironmental impact assessmentScale (ratio)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementEconomic growthEngineeringArchaeologyCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although there has been a tremendous amount of past and future development in the James Bay region of northern Canada, there has been very little empirical research that examined the impact of economic development on Cree tallymen, who are the senior grassroots managers of this vulnerable ecosystem. This oversight is particularly important because the region is currently facing the possibility of additional large-scale hydroelectric development and there is no existing baseline information on past impacts on Cree tallymen. In addition, tallymen continue to have important cultural significance to the Cree Nation and also broader significance to the field of sustainable management. This article attempts to fill this gap by providing ethnographic research on the impact of past development on Cree tallymen from the perspectives of the tallymen themselves. The author also draws implications for environmental impact assessments in the region and, more broadly, for the future study of ecologically embedded managers such as the Cree tallymen.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrganization & EnvironmentSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207