Blue Lagoon Heritage Concept Plan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper, documenting current issues facing Blue Lagoon – environmentally, economically and socially, was a collaborative effort spurred by a vision from Ms. Adrienne Joan Duperly. The Concept Plan outlines potential initiatives which could be undertaken to rejuvenate Heritage and maintain the environmental integrity of the Blue Lagoon itself, as well as provide sustainable economic initiatives for the residential population. Ms. Duperly had a vision to construct a document to generate discussion at Blue Lagoon Summit 2010 encompassing Blue Lagoon area and adjacent communities in Portland. The Summit themes of Land, Wood, and Water are the focal point for all potential initiatives and addressing them should centre on the preservation of these aspects. All stakeholders will be encouraged to participate in developing a plan to add value to the environment and local community. An initiative which would see people maximizing earnings but further harming the land, wood, and water surrounding the Blue Lagoon may seem favourable; however other factors must be considered. If an initiative offers a significant financial return, but only offers short term gains before the natural surroundings decline to a level where people stop coming, it cannot be considered sustainable. There must be a mix between enhancing the environmental integrity of the area and the creation of local employment opportunities. Preserving the Blue Lagoon can be the catalyst for sustainably developing the community as a whole, and that is the goal of the Blue Lagoon Heritage Concept Plan. An array of research undertakings from personal interviews, online resources, journal articles, and text books were used to develop this paper. A major resource was a San San and adjacent communities report done by Fredrick Zenny. On July 28, 2010 the Executive Director of Jamaica National Heritage Trust endorsed the Blue Lagoon concept as presented.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.085 | 0.013 |
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".