MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884873785 · doi:10.31265/jcsw.v9i2.116

Resource Development in Canada’s North

2014· article· en· W2884873785 on OpenAlexaffabout
Glen Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Social Work · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResource (disambiguation)Port (circuit theory)Promotion (chess)Natural resourceExploitBusinessWork (physics)Economic growthResource management (computing)Community developmentOrder (exchange)Service (business)GeographyExploitation of natural resourcesEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceMarketingEconomicsEngineeringPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growth of global economies, particularly in Asia, has resulted in an increased demand for natural resources. Canada is a large country rich in hydrocarbons and minerals, and the exploitation of these resources is a priority for Canadian provincial and federal governments. In their rush to reap the economic benefits of resource development, governments have concentrated on creating optimal conditions for the corporations that exploit and produce the resources in northern and remote regions of the country. The rapid promotion of development has meant that families and communities are usually given secondary consideration. The changes associated with resource development exert some serious negative effects on communities and families, and it is important for social workers to understand this reality in order to deliver service in an effective manner.This research used a case study method to examine three examples of the effects of resource development on families and communities in Canada: long distance commuting to the Athabaska oil sands and the effects on families in Newfoundland, diamond mining and the Tlicho people of Wekwee´ti´ in the Northwest Territories, and the large influx of construction workers to develop the processing and port facilities in the community of Kitimat in northwestern British Columbia. The results can inform social work education, as well as the practice of social workers located in remote communities affected by rapid resource development.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.897

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Social WorkSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207