MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286922478 · doi:10.14288/1.0071371

Navigating marine ecosystem services and values

2010· article· en· W2286922478 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah C. Klain

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcosystem servicesEcosystemEnvironmental resource managementBusinessGeographyEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is broadly recognized that local knowledge and values should play a prominent role in natural resource decision-making. This research was based on the concept of ecosystem services (ES), which are the ecological processes through which nature provides benefits to people. A primary methodological research goal was to test an interview protocol to solicit the verbal articulation, spatial identification and a quantitative measure of local monetary values, non-monetary values and threat intensities associated with marine ES. This research identified and characterized a wide range of ways in which people value marine ecosystems in the Regional District of Mount Waddington in British Columbia, Canada to inform an ongoing marine spatial planning process. A total of 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted based on non-proportional quota sampling to target interviewees from across the district who have a variety of marine-related occupations. The interview protocol was successful in eliciting emotive expressions of the intangible benefits and values pertaining to ES. All interviewees verbally identified these benefits and values, but some (30%) refused to assign quantified non-monetary value to specific locations and others (16%) chose not to identify specific locations of non-monetary importance. Given that the spatial quantification of non-monetary values was not broadly acceptable, it is recommended that these research findings and methods complement deliberative processes to enable decision makers to more fully consider stakeholder’s non-monetary values and threats associated with ES. When explaining values and threats across the seascape, respondents bundled various services, benefits, and values associated with ecosystems. For articulating specific values, many used metaphors quite different form the implicit ES metaphor of nature as service provider. This protocol did not fully crowd out these alternative metaphors. Based on the spatial analysis, there was significant overlap among all three pair-wise comparisons of monetary values, non-monetary values, and threat intensity values. People tended to assign greater monetary and non-monetary value closest to inhabited locations. Employment in salmon aquaculture, the most divisive marine issue in the region, correlated with the perception that the ocean does not face environmental threat associated with this industry.

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)0.001
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 score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicCoastal and Marine ManagementFrench-language works237,207