MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128015273 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2020-0235

Seeds of change? Seed transfer governance in British Columbia: insights from history

2021· article· en· W3128015273 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ricardo Pelai, Shannon Hagerman, Robert Kozak

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsCorporate governanceDominance (genetics)Policy transferEnvironmental governanceGovernment (linguistics)Knowledge transferReforestationPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementEcologyEconomicsPublic administrationBiologyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree seed transfer is critical to effective reforestation programs, and exploring its policy roots provides insights to understand future, and potentially controversial, actions like assisted migration. We offer a historical overview of seed transfer governance in British Columbia, Canada, by applying analytics from the policy change and knowledge co-production literatures. Based on document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key informants, we trace governance attributes to examine how and why policies have changed (or not) over time. We reveal a paradigmatic shift in seed transfer governance, culminating in a climate-based seed transfer system — informed largely by genetic knowledge — that emerged through a policy window opening. In contrast, governance processes remained relatively unchanged in practice, including the disproportionately influential role of the forest industry in policy-making. These insights shed light on the legacies of a government–industry policy coalition that influence underlying seed transfer objectives (i.e., forest productivity), and help to explain the ongoing dominance of particular knowledge forms used to inform policy. We highlight the need for increased contributions from a wider range of expertise, stakeholders, and rights holders in developing seed transfer policies for future forests.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.150
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207