MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W304803495

Living in Bear Country: increasing municipal compliance with the Bear Smart Program in British Columbia

2011· article· en· W304803495 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Development and Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)BusinessGeographyPolitical sciencePsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many communities in British Columbia are grappling with the presence of bears in their communities. The Ministry of Environment (MOE) created the Bear Smart Program in 2002 to assist these communities to prevent human-bear conflict. However, at the end of 2010 only two communities have completed the program. This study draws upon informant interviews and local documentation to develop a better understanding of why communities are participating but not completing the Bear Smart Program. This study puts forth a set of recommendations that the MOE can use to increase the completion rates of the Bear Smart Program. It recommends that in the short-term the MOE should focus on building a social consensus around human-bear conflict and in the medium- to long-term that it utilizes a responsive framework to build compliance with the Bear Smart Program and maintain Bear Smart standards in communities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it