The Remapping of Forest Governance: From Shareholder to Stakeholder
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
Abstract Resource conflicts are widespread features of contemporary globalization. In forestry-related resource peripheries, such as British Columbia (BC), various societal stakeholders are demanding a reform of resource uses away from industrial priorities towards more ecological and cultural ones. Forest conflicts represent institutional clashes that lead to new forms of governance based on new inventories, resource maps, science, and zoning. The authors of this paper analyze the remapping of forest resources in BC as part of broader paradigmatic transformations of society and economy from shareholder to stakeholder models of resource governance, i.e. as a shift in policy-making from hierarchical control by governments and markets to more diffuse, democratic forms of governance. This process is accompanied by institutional innovation and thickening that still need to be assessed for their effectiveness. Whether stakeholder remapping can be certified as good governance remains a context-dependent empirical question.
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) | 0.000 | 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