Bibliographic record
Abstract
For more than three decades, British Columbia’s old growth forests have been a major source of political conflict. In Talk and Log, Jeremy Wilson presents a comprehensive account of the rise of the wilderness movement, examines the forest industry’s political strategies, and analyzes the inner workings of the policy process. Wilson describes a number of major political battles, such as those resulting in preservation of South Moresby, the Carmanah, and the Valhalla wilderness, and investigates the factors that pushed the government towards a more comprehensive approach to expanding the protected areas system. He considers a wide range of forest policy developments and assesses the effectiveness of government and industry attempts to contain the wilderness movement. In the final part, he explores the Harcourt NDP government’s reform initiatives, including the Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE), the Protected Areas Strategy, and the Forest Practices Code. Talk and Log illuminates the forces behind controveries that have divided British Columbians, preoccupied the provincial government, and drawn the attention of people across Canada and the world. By discussing the patterns and trends underlying the past three decades of wilderness politics, Wilson identifies the currents likely to dominate B.C. wilderness debates in decades to come.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.175 | 0.066 |
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".