MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4250877510 · doi:10.24124/2018/58881

Mapping wilderness character in the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area

2018· dissertation· en· W4250877510 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Lindi Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Environmental Valuation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
KeywordsWildernessRecreationWilderness areaGeographyNaturalnessCharacter (mathematics)Environmental resource managementWildlifeResource (disambiguation)EcologyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wilderness is an abstract concept containing both an ecological component more generally referred to as naturalness, and a social/human component attributed with recreation; it varies geographically, culturally and jurisdictionally. This thesis focuses on a case study of the Muskwa-Kechika Management Area (M-KMA) in northern British Columbia, Canada where maintaining wilderness is central to the vision. Previous mapping within the M-KMA has focused on wildlife and resource values, whereas this thesis aimed to define and map the wilderness character of the M-KMA. This thesis assesses the current state of wilderness to potentially examine changes over time and to spatially compare wilderness with other uses such as resource potential. When wilderness character data are separated into categories (lower, moderate, high and very-high), 55% is represented in the very-high quality category and only 9% by the lower category. In addition, there is 26% overlap between high resource potential values and very-high wilderness values.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.128 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEconomic and Environmental ValuationFrench-language works237,207