Collaboration and co-management in Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, and Haida Heritage Site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural resource management can be strengthened through the inclusion of both local knowledge and western science into the decision-making process. Co-management is a term used to describe an agreement between a local resource using group with some level of government which signifies the sharing of power and authority over natural resource management decisions for a given resource or ecosystem. The Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, National Marine Conservation Area Reserve, and Haida Heritage Site, has been co-managed by the local Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada since an agreement was signed by both parties in 1993. The Gwaii Haanas Agreement signifies that these two governing bodies with land entitlement disputes will manage this pristine area solely on consensus based decisions. Widely viewed as a successful co-management arrangement, those involved with the Gwaii Haanas Agreement today have recently publicly shared goals of improving collaboration among the partnering organizations. This research provides baseline data in regard to what the current collaborative relationships look like today, both within organizations and among partnering organizations. Our findings indicate that there are specific areas where increased collaborative relationships could potentially improve this co-management network. Further, my research shows that the community behind the Gwaii Hanaas Agreement plays a key role in the continued success of Gwaii Haanas co-management. The presence of strong, informal relationships outside of the professional co-management network strengthen the co-management network as a whole, demonstrating that community plays a larger role than politics when it comes to co-management success in Gwaii Haanas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".