MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033609661

Rethinking Responses to Coastal Problems: An Analysis of the Opportunities and Constraints for Canada

2010· other· en· W7033609661 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2010
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and ELM
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoastal managementLand coverGeospatial analysisLand useSustainabilityCoastal erosionCurrent (fluid)Scale (ratio)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research challenged popular assumptions that Canadian coastal environments remain relatively un-impacted by human activities, and that current practices in coastal management are sufficient to ensure sustainability of coastal resources and communities. Using a systematic analysis of the literature, the performance of integrated coastal management, as reported for other nations, was examined, and shared impediments to progress were identified. Drawing from these insights, it was determined that past and current efforts to implement integrated management of the coasts in Canada have encountered similar constraints. \n\nAn intensive review of state of the coast information in Canada was conducted, including an assessment of the indicators used to monitor change in coastal environments and coastal communities. The research concluded that there was insufficient information to support expectations that Canada’s coastal environments remain un-impacted. \n\nInformation on actual conditions on the Atlantic coastal of Nova Scotia was supplemented with new research on the potential linkages between changing land cover and pressures on coastal receiving environments. Using geospatial technology and field investigations in local water quality, land cover ratios in primary watersheds were compared to nutrient concentrations in coastal waters. Working at a coarse landscape scale of data, in some embayments potential linkages were identified between reduced forest cover and increased nitrogen levels in rivers and bays. The research findings were also applied to the development of two practical tools for use in negotiated land use planning. To avoid adverse effects to coastal receiving waters, the GreenField Ratio proposes maximum and minimum thresholds for land cover types within primary watersheds. The Coastal Sensitivity Rating facilitates an improved understanding of the cumulative factors affecting the vulnerability of coastal ecosystems to impact. \n\nResponding to the challenges faced by current initiatives in coastal management, the research proposes an alternative approach for Canada that does not require integration of coastal authorities. As outlined, the CoastWORKS framework relies on collaborative efforts within existing institutional and community organizations to achieve needed change in policy and practice. CoastWORKS defines coastal landscapes, sets principles to guide action, establishes a list of priority goals, and can be accomplished through individual local actions and collaborative governance.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.168 · 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