MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162923427 · doi:10.22230/jem.2004v5n1a282

A biologist's perspective on amalgamating traditional environmental knowledge and resource management

2004· article· en· W2162923427 on OpenAlexafffund
Alex W.H. Hawley, Erin E. Sherry, Chris J. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsResource management (computing)Knowledge managementPerspective (graphical)ConciliationHuman resource managementNatural resource managementResource (disambiguation)Human resource management systemBusinessEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmental resource managementSociologyNatural resourcePolitical scienceComputer scienceSocial scienceEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent transitions in resource management and recognition of the role of First Nations in resource management have heightened the need for conciliation of these two different views of the world and the place of people in it (world view). Efforts to amalgamate these diverse perspectives in resource management are impeded by a legacy of cultural imperialism and difficulties in understanding and accommodating differences in world views, including the place of resource management in society, the meanings and implications of incongruent language, the management of people and resources, and the characteristics of information and knowledge. We examine the consequences of each of these to the establishment of a unified management system that emphasizes points of commonality and is based on respect and communication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.105
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207