Governance as a driver of change in the Canadian boreal zone<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian boreal forest is primarily public land, owned and managed by provincial governments on behalf of the public interest. Boreal forest governance consists of a complex patchwork of federal and provincial legislation, policies, tenures, and delegated authorities designed to achieve multiple (and often conflicting) social, ecological, and economic objectives. We examine the implications of boreal governance arrangements for sustainable management of ecosystem services. The paper shows how current multi-level governance arrangements that evolved from Canada’s Constitution Act are not effective at managing the cross-scale and cross-sectoral challenges of ecosystem services and have created a crisis of legitimacy for forest decisions. We show how the rise of nonstate arrangements, marketization, and decentralization are partly a response to governance gaps for ecosystem services as well as a reflection of global trends in forest governance. Past trends related to governance themes (the role and scope of government, the level of integration and coordination, Indigenous empowerment, and geopolitical influences) are used to motivate future governance scenarios.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".