Enhancing stakeholder engagement in sustainable forest management: A multi‐domain comparative analysis of forest‐related beliefs, values, and behaviors of <scp>C</scp>anadian <scp>A</scp>boriginal and <scp>non‐Aboriginal</scp> groups
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The study aims to understand the variations in the domain‐specific pro‐sustainable‐forest‐management behavior (PSFMBs) and their explanatory factors across ecological, economic, recreational, and Aboriginal domains and between Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal groups. A hybrid model of PSFMB, which integrates environmental psychology and resource economics perspectives, is conceptualized and estimated using multi‐group path analysis and data from three Aboriginal and three non‐Aboriginal communities in Ontario, Canada. Results show that both groups make substantial pro‐SFM contributions, but the contributions and their influencing factors differ across domains and groups. For Aboriginals, environmental worldviews and assigned forest values are the only influencing factors, while for non‐Aboriginals, income and forest environmental conditions play dominant roles. The findings confirm the fundamental differences in the roles of beliefs, values, and situational factors in influencing the PSFMB of Aboriginal and non‐Aboriginal groups, highlight the need for theoretical lenses that account for cultural differences, and contribute to the development of inclusive policies that respect the unique values of different social groups.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it