Studying Resource-Dependent Communities Through a Social-Ecological Lens? Examining Complementarity with Existing Research Traditions in Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the suitability of Ostrom and colleagues' social-ecological systems framework (SESF) for the study of resource-dependent communities in Canada. Through a broad literature about resource-dependent communities in Canada, three main approaches are identified, named staples research, rural development, and sustainability studies. Each of these research traditions is analyzed with regards to a common set of criteria – focus, scale, methods, treatment of institutions, and treatment of environmental dimensions. Research in each category is compared and contrasted with the SESF approach, to identify areas of overlap and divergence. Results indicate that the SESF is unlikely to provide additional benefit in terms of in-depth of social analysis, however, it does provide a unique contribution in terms of its coupled approach to conceiving social and ecological systems and its ability to operationalize these relationships through structured variables.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it