Community-based stream conservation initiatives in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Columbia is a diverse province, with ecosystems ranging from semi-arid deserts to valley glaciers and vast ice fields. By world standards, BC has an abundance of fresh water in its lakes and rivers. However, rivers have been exploited for social and industrial purposes, often to the detriment of the natural values. Community groups and non-government organizations have been active in rehabilitating and restoring waterways. The Outdoor Recreation Council of BC is a provincial non-government organization that has been instrumental in river conservation issues in BC. Three key initiatives have been established by the Council since its formation in 1975. BC Rivers Day has grown into the largest river celebration of its kind in North America, and there is a move to establish a national Rivers Day in Canada based on the model established in BC. Second is the annual Endangered Rivers List compiled by the Council and released each spring. The third initiative is the River Recovery Project in which dams and impoundment structures were evaluated against a set of criteria. A short list of candidates was generated by the project that will be further studied to determine what actions should be taken to alter the management of the structures to restore ecological values of the rivers and streams on which they are built. The three initiatives described rely on local community support. The Outdoor Recreation Council of BC provides coordination, promotion, and publicity as well as some resource materials while local groups and communities take on stewardship roles for their local streams. This model may be useful for other jurisdictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.001 |
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".