MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3147795720 · doi:10.1505/146554821832140402

Adapting forest management to climate change: experiences of the Nisga'a people

2021· article· en· W3147795720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jose Arias-Bustamante, John L. Innes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Forestry Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeForest managementGovernment (linguistics)Environmental resource managementIndigenousPsychological resilienceForest ecologyBusinessNatural resource economicsGeographyEcosystemEcologyEnvironmental scienceForestryEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines and characterizes the potential impacts of climate change on the lands of the Nisga'a Nation in British Columbia, Canada, and how these impacts might affect traditional forest practices. The study results were integrated with a review of current Nisga'a forest policy. The current forest policy has developed an inflexible approach to forest management that perpetuates a top-down decision-making framework inherited from the past relationship with the provincial government. Building from the experiences of the Nisga'a Nation, it is revealed that inflexible forest policies coupled with climate change impacts could lead the forest ecosystems to ecological thresholds. No approach by itself will be sufficient to meet the challenges these changes will bring to Indigenous peoples and society in general. An integrative approach, where the forest management is undertaken from a resilience point of view, is needed if current conditions are to be improved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Forestry ReviewSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207