Perceptions of landscape change in British Columbia's Northwest: implications for biodiversity and participatory management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Throughout British Columbia (BC), as elsewhere in North America, debates surrounding biodiversity and landscape conservation have deepened as a result of the efforts of government and non-governmental organizations to establish large protected areas and limit the activities of resource development interests (such as timber companies and mining corporations) in ecologically sensitive landscapes. Such plans ultimately attempt to restore natural ecosystems by limiting human activity within selected areas and by restoring ecological processes such as fire, flooding, and erosion. Support for these plans is often the most strident in urbanized areas where people are least affected by concerns for the loss of socio-economic well-being and cultural identity. In BC's remote forested landscapes, which have contributed significantly to the identity of First Nations 1 and non-aboriginal residents alike, residents express opposition towards any conservation strategy that purports to remove humans as an agent of change in the natural landscape. Even conservationists are beginning to question whether ‘naturalistic’ approaches to landscape management conflict with the conservation of biodiversity and traditional landscapes (Hull and Robertson, 2000). Owing in part to the reaction of local residents to nature conservation and landscape restoration strategies, the government of BC has begun to pay increasing attention to stakeholders' concerns by introducing and experimenting with innovative methods of public participation. However, they still face the challenge of working with competing values in decision-making processes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".