Transboundary Conservation: Security, Civil Society and Cross‐Border Collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines transboundary conservation initiatives in the Rocky Mountains of North America with a particular focus on the world's first peace park, located on the Alberta‐Montana border. The peace park concept envisions the free migration of animals and humans within a select area by removing artificial boundaries and seeks to encourage harmonious relations between countries through co‐management of shared ecosystems. As such, Rocky Mountain conservation initiatives are significant because they are a symbol of bilateral cooperation between two countries that claim the world's longest shared border. The so‐called “ecosystem approach” to managing a portion of the northern border of the U.S. stands in sharp contrast to other American initiatives that seek to promote national security on its southern frontier by sealing borders, and as a result, dividing ecosystems. More pointedly, the post 9–11 U.S. security focus on illegal immigration and terrorism could cause irreparable damage to the concept of using transborder conservation to foster peace between contiguous nations in other parts of the world. The best hope for success in overcoming these challenges likely rests within civil society, specifically conservationists and their allies on both sides of the border for whom wilderness integrity is the highest priority.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".