Bibliographic record
Abstract
Key aspects of sustainable development and resilience include empowerment of local people, self-reliance, and social justice. One way to achieve those aspects is to incorporate experience, knowledge, and understanding of various groups and people. The terms “stakeholders” and “partnerships” are often used to characterize engaging organized interest groups and the general public into resource and environmental planning. This chapter reviews characteristics of stakeholder engagement through partnerships. Attention also is given to the role of local knowledge, including gender perspectives, to inform plans and decisions. In-depth case studies include a state-wide network of partnerships in Wisconsin, stakeholder consultation to manage conflict between commercial fishers and tourism in a natural park in Mexico, the Chipko movement in India, and gender engagement regarding climate change in Nepal. Wendy Cridland, in her guest statement, examines partnership initiatives to address proliferation of an aggressive invasive non-native weed species in coastal wetlands of Lake Erie, Ontario.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.034 | 0.008 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".