An implementation analysis of the Clayoquot Sound scientific panel recommendations on First Nations perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1995, the government of British Columbia adopted a set of groundbreaking recommendations for addressing First Nations perspectives in forestry in Clayoquot Sound. The recommendations focus on three themes: First Nations participation in forest management and decision-making, protection of cultural values, and incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge in management. Key informants from implementing agencies and target groups including government, the forest industry, First Nations, and multisectoral planning and co-management bodies were interviewed to determine how effectively these recommendations have been implemented. Outputs of implementing agencies and their perceived impacts by target groups were assessed. Factors that act as challenges or facilitators to implementation are determined, to explain the reasons for the observed degree of implementation success in each theme. Applying a broad, adaptive approach in defining implementation success, it was found that substantial impacts have been realized. Foremost among them are relationship building between previously disparate parties, and cross-cultural learning and exchange. However, it was also found that the observed impacts cannot be attributed solely to the recommendations being studied, as there are many interacting factors.
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 | 0.105 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".