"Doing it right": Issues and practices of sustainable harvesting of non-timber forest products relating to First Peoples in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses concerns about commercial harvesting of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) that relate to First Peoples in British Columbia. Many of the species identified as being significant, or having potential significance as NTFPs, are culturally important to First Peoples as sources of food, material, and medicines, or for their spiritual values. While there may be potential for First Peoples to develop local economies from the harvesting, processing, and marketing of NTFPs, there also is widespread concern that traditional values may be lost, and traditional plant resources treated as commodities and exploited by commercial interests. Previous experiences with overharvesting cascara and Pacific yew bark lend substance to this concern.Aboriginal peoples have a long history of sustainable management of their lands and resources. Any proposed harvest and use of traditional resources should be under the control of, or in collaboration with, those First Peoples within whose traditional territory the resources are to be harvested. Applications of traditional management methods for NTFPs should be explored, but this should be done in collaboration with First Peoples and with full respect for their intellectual property rights.Principles of sustainable harvesting of NTFPs are presented that may prove useful in ongoing deliberations about how, or even whether, communities should pursue non-timber forest productsas a means of economic development.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".