Factors Influencing Forest Values and Attitudes of Two Stakeholder Groups: The Case of the Foothills Model Forest, Alberta, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canada's Model Forest Program was established as a means of implementing concepts of sustainable forest management. An initial step to achieving this is understanding stakeholders' forest values and attitudes. A study was undertaken to examine forest values and attitudes toward forest management of campers and hunters in the Foothills Model Forest of Alberta within the context of a cognitive hierarchy model. Data were collected by mail survey in 1996. Campers and hunters were primarily biocentric in their forest values orientation. These groups supported protection-oriented management strategies, were not in favor of economic development and timber-oriented strategies, and did not believe that current forest management is sustainable. Socioeconomic factors, social influences, and knowledge had little influence on values or attitudes. Forest values were related strongly to attitudes providing support for the cognitive hierarchy model. Keywords: Attitudes Foothills Model Forest Forest Values Knowledge Management Preferences
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it