MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884263330 · doi:10.1080/08941920.2018.1481548

Developing Human Well-being Domains, Metrics and Indicators in an Ecosystem-Based Management Context in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia, Canada

2018· article· en· W2884263330 on OpenAlexaffabout
Haris R. Gilani, John L. Innes, Hannah Kent

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety & Natural Resources · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLand Use and Ecosystem Services
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Environmental resource managementGeographyWell-beingWork (physics)ArchaeologyPolitical scienceEngineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecosystem-based management (EBM) encompasses both ecological integrity and human well-being, although it remains unclear how human well-being should be measured in an EBM context. Despite efforts to view EBM holistically, the human component is often overlooked or reduced to economic indicators that do not capture the full range of values held by the people affected by EBM policies. This study explored human well-being metrics of importance to local residents in Haida Gwaii, British Columbia (B.C.), Canada. The selection of this particular forest-dependent community was pragmatic since Haida Gwaii has recently participated in EBM planning and policy implementation that includes co-management between the Haida Nation and the Province of B.C. Using semistructured key informant interviews, we identified seven domains and 46 human well-being metrics important to measure on Haida Gwaii. Communities working to develop human well-being metrics in similar EBM contexts may find these concepts useful in their work.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.196
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety & Natural ResourcesSame topicLand Use and Ecosystem ServicesFrench-language works237,207