Clayoquot Sound: Lessons in ecosystem-based management implementation from an industry perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1995, the Clayoquot Sound Scientific Panel submitted a report with 170 recommendations that fundamentally changed forest management as it had been traditionally practiced in the Sound. The Scientific Panel's report represents an early case study of ecosystem-based management (EBM) implementation. The recommendations were adopted by industry, government, and other participants with hopes that this would end the vociferous conflicts that had come to characterize Clayoquot Sound. British Columbia's Provincial government was committed to working with industry, First Nations, forest workers, and local communities to make the changes happen. However, the implementation was not accomplished easily or cheaply, and it was not an unmitigated success, at least from the perspective of industry. In addition to summarizing the history of the process, this article discusses outcomes of EBM implementation in Clayoquot Sound in terms of planning for environmental values before timber, using ecological rather than administrative boundaries, and engaging participants early and throughout the planning process. With emphasis on implications from an industry perspective, the authors recommend approaches that balance the strengths and challenges inherent in ecosystem-based management in British Columbia.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".