MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7005222818

Property Rights in a Canadian Mountain Watershed: A Case Study from the Columbia River Valley, British Columbia

2010· article· en· W7005222818 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Diseases and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProperty rightsCommonsResource (disambiguation)SustainabilityLand usePrivate propertyLand tenurePublic propertyCommon-pool resource
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"In the summer of 1995, an interdisciplinary team investigated property rights and biophysical aspects of sustainability in and around the village of Nakusp, B.C., in the Canadian Cordillera. A temporal review of land use was used to bring together historical trends of resource exploitation, overlapping property rights and evolving pressures for land use change. Community interviews, site observations and an extensive literature review were supported by analysis of satellite imagery, air photos, and biogeophysical resource maps within a Geographic Information System. Due to the history and culture of resource exploitation in the area, rights and 'rules' of land use, defined and practiced locally in the watersheds of the Columbia River valley, basically fall under state property and private property regimes. Although Canadian resource exploitation is highly articulated in law, it was found that there is an undertone of public participation at all levels. Strictly speaking community-level institutions are weak and poorly defined and the only local common property institution concerned mushroom gathering in the forest. At the regional scale, however, 'common-property'-like structures are evolving as a result of extensive public participation and stakeholder consultation concerned with future land use regulations. In comparison with the Kullu Valley mountain forest commons, the Nakusp area has an evolving strength in regional commons institutions. The comparison raises the question, 'Are local and regional institutions for the commons complementary or competitive?'"

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.159 · 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