MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388823359 · doi:10.4337/9781789906967.00017

The emergence of contemporary valley images: a comparison of landscape perceptions of three valleys in north-western British Columbia, Canada

2023· book-chapter· en· W4388823359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diana E. French

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyRecreationContext (archaeology)PerceptionArchaeologyEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Tatshenshini-Alsek, Taku and Stikine River valleys are the three most northerly significant valleys located in northern British Columbia, Canada. They share many commonalities including geographical and landscape features, but there are some significant differences in the way they are widely perceived. In the context of landscape perception theory, I will illuminate what factors have contributed to the emergence of differing images and characterizations of these valleys which underpin the varying landscape perceptions. The creation of BC provincial parks in each valley and their management priorities, the role of environmental activists in efforts to counteract potential environmental disasters, and an increase in recreational activities have resulted in the proliferation of various forms of media contributing to the landscape perceptions commonly held by the public. The Taku and Tatshenshini-Alsek valleys to varying degrees maintain their images of wild and untamed lands upheld by local First Nations, while a portion of the Stikine valley has become known as ‘eye candy’ of the north.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooksSame topicGeographies of human-animal interactionsFrench-language works237,207