Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the normative and subjective nature of the terms sustainability and sustainable development, solutions tend to be applicable for specific regions but not the whole of society. Thus, it is imperative understand better how community stakeholders and decision makers define the concept of sustainability. Not only will greater understanding of such definitions add to our understanding of nature-society relations, but also in certain contexts, this understanding may help to promote realistic and effective decision-making at local levels. The objective of this study was to determine how amenity-driven gateway communities surrounding Yellowstone and Grand Teton National parks define, conceptualize, and perceive sustainability, and if those perceptions varied between time in residence, community of origin, or role within the community. Thirty-five key informant interviews were conducted with decision makers within the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem to meet the study objectives. Throughout study communities, definitions of sustainability focused on the environment, the economy, and multi-generational thinking, and it is believed that these similarities can be the starting point for communication and collaboration among gateway communities, the long-term sustainability of their individual communities, and the collective resource upon which they all depend, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".