MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6922020484 · doi:10.11575/prism/23543

Planning for recreation on public lands: an examination of the Livingstone River

2004· other· en· W6922020484 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePRISM (University of Calgary) · 2004
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Methods and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of AlbertaAlberta Conservation AssociationEarthwatch Institute
KeywordsRecreationPlan (archaeology)Comprehensive planningLand-use planningProcess (computing)Public useLand use

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Livingstone River Valley (LRV) is an area of public land in Southwest Alberta that is experiencing increasing pressures from recreational and other uses.Little information exists about recreational users to inform future planning processes.This project included investigation of recreational users in the LRV and of the planning process for recreation management on public land in Alberta.Detailed socio-demographic information on recreational users of the LRV was collected using a traffic intercept survey method in summer 2003 and 2004.Three regionally relevant precedents were reviewed to investigate the recreation planning process.Based on these investigations and a literature review on recreation management and planning theory, two recommendations are provided.First, a new comprehensive planning process for recreation management is recommended.Second, it is recommended to use information collected about recreational users to plan specifically for the needs of recreational users so that management actions will be more effective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePRISM (University of Calgary)Same topicEducation Methods and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207