Conflicting perspectives on ecosystem conservation in a cultivated floodplain: The role of science and the challenge of pluralism in decision‐making in Lac <scp>Saint‐Pierre</scp> (Quebec, Canada)
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 By generating and explaining facts, science holds an important role in environmental policy decision‐making. However, scientific knowledge is often framed as objective and neutral in policy debates, which can be challenged by stakeholders who have a different view of the issue. To counter this situation, we propose a novel scientific approach to analyze problems that are highly contested and seem difficult to resolve, that is, wicked problems. Our study combined post‐normal science and environmental justice perspectives to shed light on a wicked problem—the largely unsuccessful efforts to rehabilitate yellow perch stocks in Lac Saint‐Pierre (LSP), Quebec, Canada. The combination of these two perspectives allows us to investigate the causes of the decrease of yellow perch stocks and the social and institutional barriers to rehabilitation—which can only be overcome if the injustice perceived by different stakeholders is overcome. Our study presents an approach that addresses uncertainties, integrates various knowledge forms, reassesses decision‐making procedures, and highlights inequalities within a specified territory. The research also underlines the importance of the qualitative dimension in the development of knowledge and the need to address equity in the development of environmental policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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