MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7052268996

Resilience and Social-Ecological Systems:
\nThe UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Program in Australia and
\nCanada

2009· dissertation· en· W7052268996 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

VenueUTAS Research Repository · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TasmaniaCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationACT Government
KeywordsSustainabilityBiosphereGovernment (linguistics)Corporate governanceScope (computer science)Resilience (materials science)Civil societyProcess (computing)Conceptual frameworkPsychological resilience
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) Biosphere Reserves
\n(BRs) provide an example of an integrated sustainability framework that allows for connection
\nbetween international, national, state / provincial and local levels of conservation and capacitybuilding.
\nThe three major functions of a BR are conservation of biodiversity, sustainable development
\nand support for logistics. As coupled social-ecological systems, BRs explicitly acknowledge that
\nhuman systems and ecological systems are inextricably linked, and have the potential to bridge
\necological and social-political spheres that have been viewed as predominantly disparate entities,
\nrather than as interconnected or nested systems.
\nThe aim of this thesis is to identify the key features (assets, process and outcome) required to
\nenhance the fit between governance systems and ecosystems using the UNESCO BR model, and
\ndevelop a framework for establishing BRs as resilient working landscapes. By identifying features that
\nseem critical for linking civil society, institutions and government dynamically across multiple levels,
\nthe research addresses the governance dimension of ecosystem management and the social factors
\nthat enable such management. The scope of the thesis is limited to developed country contexts.
\nData are derived from focus groups, site visits, 52 key informant interviews and literature reviews.
\nThe research process utilised an emergent, naturalistic inquiry, characterised by abductive, deductive
\nand inductive methods. Four Australian and four Canadian qualitative case studies support and
\ndemonstrate the three phases of the BR resilience conceptual framework developed herein.
\nUNESCO BRs originated in the early 1970s as international examples of biodiversity conservation
\nand sites of scientific research and monitoring. Since this time, the international program has
\nbroadened to include more complex notions of social-ecological systems, reflecting shifts in
\nenvironmental discourse and praxis. The Australian BR Program is characterised by governmentinitiated
\nBRs and those generated though community-derived stewardship. Over the same period, the
\nCanadian BR Program has consistently developed through community capacity and the Canadian
\nBiosphere Reserve Association.
\nCapital assets and ‘new governance’ processes are two of the three key phases of developing a
\nsuccessful (resilient) BR. Adaptive capacity is a key component of the final phase; the achievement of
\na resilient working landscape. In the framework, evolution and devolution of a BR occurs in response
\nto social and ecological variables. However, maintenance and renewal of capital assets are crucial to
\nsustaining the first and most fundamental phase of BR resilience.
\nSpecific guidelines for the application of the BR resilience conceptual framework are provided to
\ninform individual BRs and their national programs more generally, and provide any party interested in
\nthe BR concept with a means to develop a resilient BR, from its inception. Avenues for future
\nresearch are suggested, with a recommended focus upon harnessing greater understanding of
\nresilience factors in social-ecological systems, and the relationship of these to BRs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.720
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.327 · 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