MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389261815

L’aire protégée transfrontalière Torngat-Koroc : gouvernance, tourisme et retombées économiques potentielles dans les territoires du Nunatsiavut (Labrador) et Nunavik (Québec)

2013· article· fr· W4389261815 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Raynald Harvey Lemelin

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La création du parc national des Monts-Torngat en 2005 et du parc national Kuururjuaq en 2009 a, en quelque sorte, conduit à la formation d’une aire protégée transfrontalière (APT) sur une grande partie de la péninsule du Labrador dans le Nord-Est canadien. Selon l’Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature (2000), les aires protégées transfrontalières sont des espaces composés de deux ou plusieurs aires protégées situées sur ou près de frontières territoriales. Les juridictions compétentes sont les instances nationales ou infranationales des territoires sur lesquels sont implantées les aires protégées (Borrini-Feyerabend et al., 2009). Cet article propose une description de cette aire protégée transfrontalière. Il met plus particulièrement l'accent sur la protection du patrimoine naturel et culturel, sur la participation inuite à la gouvernance, et s’intéresse aux retombées économiques, notamment à travers le développement des activités touristiques que les Inuits pourront obtenir de cette aire protégée transfrontalière.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.345 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicArctic and Russian Policy Studies→French-language works237,207→