A Comparison of Ideas in the Development and Governance of National Parks and Protected Areas in the US and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses a comparison of ideas in US and Canadian national parks history and governance to explain the rationale for the development of national parks and protected areas. Comparisons of the Canadian and US national parks history have either noted few significant differences, or have argued that there has been far less emphasis on preservation in Canadian parks governance. This paper uses two main axes to compare ideas about parks governance in the US and Canada: the first involves the discursive and cultural justification for restricting development; and the second is the degree of governmental leadership and conscious planning, or statism, that goes into parks governance. A survey of the respective histories of parks governance leads to the conclusion that differences between the US and Canada in parks governance exist. Nevertheless, these are largely a result of the historical interaction and relationship between the two countries, rather than inherent cultural differences or similarities in notions of "wilderness." Conclusions centre on the effects of the tendency for Canadian patterns of economic development to produce greater path dependency and hence to restrict resistance to economic development within parks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".