Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Wildlife plays a significant role in the development of tourism in Nunavut. A certain amount of tourism in the Canadian Arctic depends on the wealth and uniqueness of the wildlife in the polar region. Two different forms of tourism based on Arctic wildlife can be distinguished: wildlife viewing and sport hunting. Both of these forms of tourism question the link between the different uses of the resource and the perceptions of wildlife. Based on an analysis of multiple information sources (literature review, newspaper analysis and semi-structured interviews), this article examines the emergence of wildlife as a tourism resource for Inuit communities and questions the issues linked to the emergence of this resource use. Using the example of polar bears, the article focuses on tourism dynamics. The article concludes that the polar bear sport hunting resource has evolved along with the changing environment. This tourism resource could be reinvented, with investments targeting other forms of tourism, such as wildlife viewing, which seems to better fit Westerners’ expectations, but is not necessarily a more environmentally friendly type of tourism.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.013 |
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 it