Indigenous and Parks Canada Agency perspectives on the management of Gulf Islands National Park Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Gulf Islands and Salish Sea Regions of British Columbia the Parks Canada Agency (PCA) currently operates Gulf Islands National Park Reserve (GINPR) and is in the development phase for the proposed Southern Strait of Georgia National Marine Conservation Area Reserve (SSGNMCAR). Protected areas such as these are meant to protect the ecological and cultural heritage of the region on behalf of all Canadians. As the government runs and expands their protected areas in the region it is important to look at their relationship with Indigenous communities in particular, as the PCA mandate requires the agency to work in “partnership” with Indigenous communities (Parks Canada 2017). The region is home to nearly 20 First Nations groups including the three W̱SÁNEĆ First Nations of the W̱SÁNEĆ Leadership Council (WLC). The WLC is an Indigenous government that has publicly stated their perception of a strained relationship with the PCA beginning before the formal establishment of GINPR in 2003. Through historical analysis; interviews with employees from the PCA and members of the W̱SÁNEĆ community; and a review of several aspects of site management and establishment in the region – this thesis explores the changing relationship between the PCA and W̱SÁNEĆ First Nations. Through this thesis I collect and discuss recommendations from W̱SÁNEĆ community members, and develop several myself, for the PCA to consider developing to improve the partnership between the two bodies. Potentially a partnership could lead towards formalized and lasting co-operative decision-making practice in the region’s cultural and natural heritage management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".