How Can Societies Create Common Access to Nature? The Roots and Development Process of the Bruce Trail, a Canadian Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The relationship between nature and human beings is a fundamental theme of commons studies. Every economic activity takes place because of ecological support. However, the relation between human beings and nature has become invisible and indirect for us. Generally, it is supposed that the more invisible and indirect the relation, the less attention we pay to the natural environment. One reason of the variety of current environmental problems is in the division between human and nature. It is necessary for us to rebuild sound relationship between human and nature. In this sense, it is very important that society allow the common access to nature so that people can appreciate and enjoy the blessings of nature. From ancient times, access to nature was open to the public or local communities in many countries. However, industrialization, urbanization, and urban sprawl have threatened the right of common access to nature. Some regions -- for example, Scandinavian countries -- have sustained this right throughout industrialization and globalization. On the other hand, in Japan, a district court denied the right of common access to the shore in 1978. Why do some regions succeed in maintaining the right of common access to nature, while some regions fail? How can we keep, reintroduce, create or transplant this right? This paper explores these questions by clarifying the roots and development process of the Bruce Trail -- 885km of main trail and 400km of associated side trails from Niagara to Tobermory along the Niagara Escarpment -- which has been built and maintained by the volunteer-based organization, the Bruce Trail Conservancy. It is interesting how they have succeeded in creating such a long trail in a country that has a strong private land ownership tradition. My conclusion is that they have transplanted ideas from other countries while at the same time adjusting these ideas to the Canadian situation, as they have built a unique open-access trail system."
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".