Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The creation and management of Canada’s national parks has been a policy success due to several features of institutional governance: its ability to remain non-partisan; its responsiveness to the needs and aspirations of its various stakeholder communities; and its ability to act as an independent steward enjoying political and bureaucratic commitment to its mission. Canada’s first national park was created in 1887 in response to economic concerns for revenue generation, but this rationale has evolved over time respecting and integrating matters of biological diversity, environmental sustainability, and public enjoyment. The Parks Canada agency has demonstrated a unique capability to balance these various purposes, while at the same time doing so in a way that has earned a national and international reputation for effective results-based management and collaborative relationships with Indigenous peoples, provinces/territories, and municipalities. The chapter provides a snapshot into the management of national parks and historic sites using mission mystique (Goodsell, 2011b) and Compton and ‘t Hart’s PPP framework (2019), drawing the conclusion in part that Parks Canada culture is committed to stewardship and the public good.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".