Blurring the Boundaries of Environmentalism: The Role of Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society as a Boundary Organization in Northern Conservation Planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Boundary organizations facilitate the transfer of practical knowledge between scientific and political realms. In the Northwest Territories of Canada the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), an environmental nongovernmental organization (ENGO), increasingly undertakes boundary work as a partner or leading organization in the development of novel arrangements in natural resource management. Drawing on ethnographic research conducted over three years’ participation in working groups for Great Bear Lake watershed management planning and the protection of an Aboriginal cultural landscape, I examine how CPAWS served an atypical ENGO function as a boundary organization. Historically ENGOs in Canada have taken a strong preservationist and anti‐industrial development stance to environmental governance issues. CPAWS, in these contemporary cases, was sensitive to multiple interests and values and assisted in both community and government projects by taking a proactive and participatory role, recognizing the need for community economic development including resource‐extractive industries. At the same time, however, CPAWS strategically promoted its status in other national conservation projects. An indirect outcome is increased perceived efficacy and influence of the boundary organization in larger forums and contexts. CPAWS effectively transformed its historically perceived preservationist, litigious, and watchdog stance to a position as active, positive, and even powerful organizational actor in conservation and development in Canada.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".