Residents' perspectives on forest health issues and management practices in Mount Robson Provincial Park.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
British Columbia and in particular the Central Interior region have a long history of infestation by mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae). However, current levels of mountain pine beetles have reached epidemic proportions in part due to the changing weather conditions and forest management practices. This current epidemic has resulted in changed forest conditions that make the forests more susceptible to fire and renewed beetle attacks. The epidemic is of particular concern for parks and protected areas due to the long history of fire suppression and inactive management. In the Robson Valley, community members find themselves immersed in issues regarding forest health and mountain pine beetle management and the corresponding effects on amenity, property, and ecological values without sufficient information from reliable and trusted sources. The rich amenity values of the Robson Valley manifest themselves in active and vocal community members thus recent strategies for active management within Mount Robson Provincial Park have met with some resistance. Limited communication between BC Ministry of Environment and local residents regarding active management strategies has only served to amplify this opposition. A survey was conducted with residents of Valemount and McBride to explore their perceptions of forest health and management practices in the Robson Valley. Results show that residents overwhelmingly want to be involved in the planning process for active management in Mount Robson Provincial Park. Resident's agree with active management strategies for a variety of management rationale, however they do not agree with all forms of active management. Improved communication strategies could help agencies such as BC Ministry of Environment gain support for more controversial management actions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".