MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794634887 · doi:10.11575/prism/34312

Sharing Land Stewardship in Alberta: The Role of Aboriginal Peoples

2012· article· en· W2794634887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David K. Laidlaw, Monique Passelac-Ross

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoastal Response Research Center, University of New HampshireALS Association
KeywordsStewardship (theology)Environmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores one possibility of revitalizing the relationship between First Nations, the people of Alberta and the lands and waters of Alberta that we all care for. To further this we propose involving First Nations in the joint management of their traditional lands and resources under formal Joint Stewardship Agreements. We introduce the concept of co-management, which is a means of decentralizing decision-making over land use and resource management from government to local communities. We provide a brief overview of the literature on co-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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207