MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185662330

Aboriginal and local perspectives on the community benefits of conservation: A case study of a proposed Canadian National Park and the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation

2010· article· en· W2185662330 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nathan Bennett, Raynald Harvey Lemelin, Stephen Ellis

Bibliographic record

VenueGeographical research forum/Geography research forum · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNational parkGeographyLocal communityPopulationEconomic growthCommunity developmentPolitical scienceGateway (web page)SocioeconomicsSociologyEthnologyArchaeologyDemographyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lutsel K’e, Northwest Territories, is a rural Aboriginal (Dene) community with a population of 400 that could soon become the gateway to the third largest national park in Canada. The Thaidene Nene Working Group of the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation is interested in the potential of the park in contributing to local socio-economic development. A collaborative research project with researchers from Lakehead University in Canada, examined various perspectives on how to maximize local development potentials in the community, with the purpose of providing information to the community and Parks Canada for direct use in park and community planning and development. This descriptive paper focuses on local and Aboriginal community member perspectives on the perceived and desired benefits of the creation of a national park in the traditional territory of the Lutsel K’e Dene First Nation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0350.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeographical research forum/Geography research forumSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207