Rural Communities and Landscape Change: A Case Study of Wild Ennerdale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ennerdale Valley is located in the Lake District National Park of northwest England. The valley has been managed as coniferous plantation forest since the 1920s by the Forestry Commission (FC). Since 2002, however, the FC has been a partner (along with the National Trust and United Utilities) in the Wild Ennerdale (WE) rewilding initiative, which alongside a more a naturally evolving landscape, also aims to provide socio-economic benefits for the local community. This paper considers the relationship between WE and the cultural landscape of Ennerdale Valley and has identified disparities between the WE view of engagement and participation and corresponding feelings of alienation, dispossession, and dislocation expressed by some members of the local community. The paper presents an argument for stronger links between WE and the Ennerdale community. In particular, there needs to be much greater appreciation of the role the rural community has played, and continue to play, in shaping the landscape of Ennerdale. Recognition of this role is important in terms of delivering a sustainable future both for the valley and for WE.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".