Protected Areas and Aboriginal Interests At Home in the Canadian Arctic Wilderness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: An alliance in the Canadian Arctic between aboriginal and conservation interests through agreements that combine aboriginal entitlement, national park creation, and cooperative management is giving new dimension to wilderness preservation goals and is enriching protected area values. This article explores the historic roots and contemporary character of aboriginal and nonaboriginal views of wilderness. A case study analysis of Vuntut National Park, Yukon, Canada is presented to exemplify a new type of protected area establishment and management that promises to support both ancient aboriginal lifeways and national conservation obiectives. Differing Perspectives on Wilderness For Canada’s first people, wilderness protection is part of larger political and legal questions, those “bound up in the thorny issues of treaty rights, aboriginal title, and Land Claims” (Erasmus 1989). Through aboriginal eyes the Canadian Arctic embodies many pervasive and enduring connections, family ties; seasonal cycles of activity, a spirit of place, sacred spaces, and ancestral homeland (Klein 1994; Davis 1994). During the past three decades aboriginal land claims and self-government negotiations have altered the political, legal, and cultural face of the North. The exploration and development of energy mining, water, and timber interests have affected traditional aboriginal lifestyles and the health of northern ecosystems In the context of this contested terrain, aboriginal groups, resource managers, and conservationists are endeavoring to define common goals and mutual understanding.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".