MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Role of ‘the Public’ in the Management of Newfoundland’s Forestry Heritage

2016· article· en· W2536627630 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erin Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueLondon Journal of Canadian Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsistence agricultureRecreationForest managementCorporate governanceBusinessStock (firearms)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningForestryAgriculturePolitical scienceEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forestry in Newfoundland has a long history of both subsistence and industrial uses, with separate associated tenure systems and property and use rights. Though most forest users on the island are subsistence or recreational users, the public plays only a minimal role in forest decision-making, which continues to revolve around industry-based harvesting decisions with little regard for the multiple forest uses valued by the public. With the rapid decline of the industrial pulp and paper sector, which has coincided with policy shifts from productivist to multifunctional forest uses, Newfoundlanders face difficult decisions regarding how to manage their forests, and for whom. This essay provides a brief history of forestry in Newfoundland, including recent changes to policies and practices on the island regarding public participation and ecosystem management. It frames some of the problems and solutions of forest governance as common-pool resource issues and suggests ways to better integrate existing forest users with forest management.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLondon Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207