Assessing the impact of forestry operations upon visitor satisfaction in Ontario's Algonquin provincial Park
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the first time in fifty years, Ontario is reviewing its Protected Space Legislation (Ontario, 2004). While the province is proposing to eliminate all industrial activities from provincial parks, it is including an exception for Algonquin Park, due to the economic importance of the logging operations, and the perceived effectiveness of sustainable forestry practices with regards to meeting both timber and non-timber (recreation and tourism) uses. The effectiveness of such a multiple-use approach is very controversial, and has resulted in much debate between wilderness preservationists, forestry supporters and recreational users.This research sought to address the following question: Are forestry operations affecting visitor satisfaction within Algonquin Provincial Park? In 2004 a survey of park visitors was performed to gain knowledge on what they sought to experience while visiting Algonquin Park, and to determine what, if any, the effects of logging had upon those experiences.The research has found that in general, visitor satisfaction is not impacted by the current forestry operations. The management practices conducted in Algonquin Park at present appear to be able to sustain a tourism/recreation industry. The forestry practices do not however appear to maintain the present make-up of the existing forest ecosystem (a mixed forest), which raises concems with respect to issues of preservation, and the long term success of sustainable forestry.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".