MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074533889 · doi:10.5558/tfc2014-126

Culturally driven forest management, utilization and values: A Nuxalk First Nations case study

2014· article· en· W2074533889 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Gary Bull, Sean Pledger, Matthias Splittgerber, J Leney Stephen, Amadeus Pribowo, Kahlil Baker, Devyani Singh, Dallas Pootlass, Nick Macleod

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMitacs
KeywordsClothingBusinessGoods and servicesForest managementEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyForestryEconomyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The forests of British Columbia have been managed for thousands of years to provide a range of products and services. For the Nuxalk people of Bella Coola, BC, their forests were used to build homes and canoes, act as a transportation system (grease trails), and provide material for clothing, fuel and cultural/artistic needs. These forests also provide a host of plants used for nourishment and medicine. The lives of First Nations people have been dramatically altered with the arrival of Western cultures; from a First Nations perspective, these traditional goods and services have been eroded. Today they seek to restore and protect the forests that provide these goods and services while at the same time recognizing the needs of a modern life, which include improved housing, energy that is environmentally friendly and the development of new products and services to sustain their economy. Eight research projects aimed at helping the Nuxalk people accomplish these goals are briefly described.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0140.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207