MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2424016712 · doi:10.5558/tfc2016-042

Action on Sustainable Forest Management through Community Forestry: The case of the Wetzin'kwa Community Forest Corporation

2016· article· en· W2424016712 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anderson Assuah, A. John Sinclair, Maureen G. Reed

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySustainable forest managementForest managementBusinessCommunity forestryGovernment (linguistics)CorporationWork (physics)Environmental resource managementEcoforestryCorporate governanceScale (ratio)Sustainable managementForestryEnvironmental planningIntact forest landscapeForest ecologyGeographyEconomicsFinanceEcologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Community forestry is a collaborative governance approach to forest management that is seen as a promising tool for implementing sustainable forest management. The expectation of government is that community forests, as managers of public forestlands, will work to achieve sustainability. Little has been written, however, about the ways community forests are being managed in an effort to realize this goal. This paper considers how the Wetzin'kwa Community Forest Corporation (WCFC) in British Columbia is working to sustainably manage its community forest. The study identified efforts taken by the WCFC towards achieving sustainable forest management as perceived by participants, and considered these in relation to indicators established by the provincial government and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. The results reveal that WCFC is making progress towards sustainably managing the forest by taking action on issues such as local employment and protecting cultural values. However, it is difficult to make a definitive statement as to whether these efforts are modest or advanced, partly because the WCFC has not developed a set of criteria and indicators to measure its own performance, and also due to the lack of a clear framework from government for measuring the achievements of such small-scale forestry operations in relation to sustainability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207