“Sense of Place”: Human Wellbeing Considerations for Ecological Restoration in Puget Sound
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
Sense of place is increasingly recognized as key to human wellbeing in social-ecological systems. Yet there is limited understanding about how to define and evaluate it for restoration. Here, we examine the connections between sense of place and human wellbeing for Puget Sound in the context of ecological restoration for shellfish harvesting and other shoreline activities. Using a mixed-methods approach, including semi-structured interviews and participatory workshops with tribal and non-tribal residents, we examined sense of place in two regions of Puget Sound. Empirical results show that people's senses of place are multi-dimensional and derived from: (1) activities in the near-shore; (2) cultural practices and familial heritage; (3) sensory and emotional experiences; and (4) the maintenance and strengthening of social connections. We also found that three conditions play important roles in enabling and fostering place attachment: access, knowledge, and ecological integrity. Improved understanding of a practice-based sense of place is key to creating and enacting successful, resident-supported restoration activities.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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