Consultative Councils in Chile: Participatory or protectionist management of the Fray Jorge National Park?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2001, the Chilean Government created Consultative Councils as part of their national park management strategy.Consultative Councils were designed with three objectives: 1) to generate opportunities for citizen participation with regards to the management, conservation and development of national parks and the surrounding communities; 2) to improve the abilities and opportunities for adjacent communities to protect their ways of living and be acknowledged and valued by society; and 3) to strengthen areas of development in communities and help promote strategic alliances between communities and private and public institutions.We set out to examine whether the Fray Jorge National Park -Consultative Council (FJNP-CC) has achieved these three objectives.Our findings indicated that the FJNP-CC has failed to facilitate community participation in park management (Objective 1) and has done little to improve the abilities and opportunities for adjacent communities to protect their ways of living (Objective 2).However, the FJNP-CC has proven effective at facilitating community access to private and public institutions (Objective 3).Despite achieving only one of its three objectives, the FJNP-CC is still considered by community members and park managers as the best opportunity to manage, if not reconcile, competing interests in the park.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".