MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4234481050 · doi:10.1201/9780203469484-23

Mexican and Canadian case studies of community-based spatial information management for biodiversity conservation

2002· book-chapter· en· W4234481050 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityBiodiversity conservationGeographyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sustainable development has come to summarize the acknowledged importance of non-destructive land-use. The idea has become widely accepted – perhaps because of its inherent constructive ambiguity, or perhaps because, like motherhood and apple pie, it is simply a notion that is hard to argue against. But unlike motherhood, it is not something to which an irrevocable commitment can arise from a moment of irrational passion and, unlike apple pie, it has no simple recipe. The challenge, as Geyer (1994) observes, is: How can dynamic communities with changing needs, aspirations and technologies maintain a non-destructive relationship with an environment that is itself dynamic and constantly changing? This clearly requires an adaptive process, and in the time frame that matters to us now, that adaptive process needs to be based on human intelligence and environmental information. Finding ways to optimize the use of available information and ensure that all providers and users of information have effective links to decision-making processes is an essential step towards sustainable development. GIS provides tools to discover, analyse and communicate the spatial relevance of data and information. A critical question still remains, however: How can high technology information management tools be brought into the public forum in a way that fosters fairness and increases decision-making competence (Webler 1995) rather than increasing polarization and marginalization?

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.011
Science and technology studies0.0180.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and BeyondFrench-language works237,207