Assessment of a Public Participation Tool by Experts: A Case Study of Quebec, 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
In theory, sustainable forest management (SFM) puts public participation at the epicenter of the decision-making process. However, in reality, the situation is different. The growing importance of public participation seems essential for the implementation of sustainable forest management. The aim of this study is to assess the implementation of a theoretical concept closely related to SFM, integrated land and resource management (ILRM). This Canadian concept aims to integrate many forest functions using participatory tools. Using semi-structured interviews with experts, we clarify our theoretical concept and adapt it to reality. Our results show that better communication between stakeholders is necessary. It is also important to increase the flexibility of the timber harvest system and adapted forest zoning should be considered. A new concept, the forest culture, seems to be a key element that needs to be considered upstream of forest management. A new definition of ILRM is proposed in order to better reach social values.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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