Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2000, eight First Nations and the Council of the Haida Nation formed analliance to protect their traditional territories from powerful economic, politicaland ideological interests that were moving to determine the future of coastalBritish Columbia. Their organization, Coastal First Nations (formerly, the TurningPoint Initiative), has become a significant player with governments, industry andenvironmental groups in defining the parameters for transforming coastal B.C. intoa conservation-based economy, following ecosystem-based management principles.Because environmentalists initiated their Great Bear Rainforest Campaign in thehomelands of Coastal First Nations members beginning in 1995, Coastal First Nationsprovides a window into understanding the complex unfolding of relationships betweenFirst Nations and major environmental groups. Based on an analysis of interviewswith First Nations and environmental group leaders, it is proposed that theirrelationship has evolved through four phases (confrontation, relationship building,becoming allies, and shifting terrains). By speaking with one voice while respectingthe autonomy of its members, Coastal First Nations has provided a strategic vehiclefor increasing Indigenous self-determination and self-sufficiency in First Nationshomelands in the face of ongoing colonization and global forces.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".