Rural Opportunities – Natural ResourceDevelopment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the umbrella of the Rural Policy Learning Commons, the Natural Resources Development (NRD) Team is committed to exploring, understanding, and sharing knowledge around the multitude of factors influencing the sustainable management of natural resources, particularly as it relates to the rural regions. Our core areas of focus are: Food & food security, Climate change, Rural communities, and Industry and trade. These areas of focus are considered alongside cross-cutting themes of land, water, energy, and governance & policy. We invite any and all participation from interested individuals and organizations. Since it’s inception the NRD team has supported a range of initiatives across Canada and internationally, helping team members share their research, conduct literature reviews, and identify policy ideas. This poster will provide rural-specific highlights from the team’s work, showcasing examples from multiple team members. This poster will also highlight ways for members and non-members to get involved and help us build and share our knowledge. Find out more about our team at: http://rplc-capr.ca/about-the-network/themes/naturalresource-development/
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".