Respecting the oral and literate in co-management communication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural resources planners—especially those involved in forest management—are increasingly being challenged in their ability to “think on their feet” and speak interactively in cross-cultural co-management teams addressing issues of natural resources management. Team learning occurs in the discovery of the best conversations to initiate that will have the potential to discover the relevant questions to ask. Continuous identification and systematic resolution of strategic issues is best done by carefully respecting both oral and written means of communication. This paper reviews historic and recent trends in the re-discovery of a team learning process that honours spoken words and respectfully facilitates dialogue. Balancing orality and literacy in the context of adaptive co-management with communities will enable natural resource stakeholders to continually improve the relevance of their policy, research and management. Key words: oral tradition, natural resources management, adaptive co-management, problem-based learning
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".