MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411737323 · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2025.104136

Reconciling wildlife governance in a changing climate: A systematic review of mule deer management in St’át’imc Territory

2025· review· en· W4411737323 on OpenAlex
Nina Andrascik, Jennifer Grenz

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Policy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council
KeywordsWildlifeWildlife managementCorporate governanceEnvironmental resource managementClimate changeGeographyWildlife conservationEnvironmental planningBusinessEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the wake of intensifying climate events—such as the increasing frequency and severity of wildfires—colonial legislation continues to hinder the advancement of ecological and food systems reconciliation. This paper presents a systematic review of mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ) management in St’át’imc Territory, a species vital to Indigenous food systems in British Columbia. The goal was to assess the extent to which provincial legislation responds to contemporary climate realities and upholds Indigenous rights. We conducted a deductive legislative review using the BC Laws database in combination with a systematic literature review following PRISMA protocols. Categorization of documents revealed five discrepancies between the legislation and evidence-based priorities in the literature: (1) the absence of climate-adaptive measures in ungulate winter range protections; (2) salvage logging practices that compromise post-wildfire ecological recovery and Indigenous stewardship; (3) hunting regulations that fail to account for Indigenous sustenance needs; (4) insufficient access management in fire-affected landscapes; and (5) the exclusion of Indigenous knowledge systems from legislative processes. Despite British Columbia’s adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), existing statutes—such as the Wildlife Act and Forest and Range Practices Act—remain misaligned with its principles. Without substantive reform, the province’s commitments to reconciliation risk remaining symbolic. This review highlights the urgent need to restructure wildlife legislation to support co-governance, uphold Indigenous food sovereignty, and foster climate resilience in the era of mega-wildfires.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.268 · 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