Assessing stakeholder interests: a strategy for best management practices of free-roaming horses, Chilcotin, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was to assess stakeholder interest pertaining to best management practices for free-roaming horses in the Chilcotin, British Columbia. The study site is located between the towns of Hanceville to the east and Tatla Lake to the west. A case study approach was adopted, utilizing on-site observation, document analysis and semi structured interview methods. Analysis, through the reduction and interpretation of data, allowed for the emergence of the themes and subthemes. Themes were free-roaming horse interaction with both the biophysical and socioeconomic landscape as well as management. British Columbia government, ranchers, First Nations and Non Governmental Organizations were interviewed on their awareness and interaction with free-roaming horses, the management and policies pertaining to the species. Free-roaming horses have historically represented a social and economic resource, although stakeholders have had little input into management decisions. Antiquated policies, clashing social values, changing land title and land use and difficult economic times have resulted in a lack of clarity regarding jurisdiction, and therefore management, for the free-roaming horses. Management goals are not clear due to lack of classification as livestock or wildlife under provincial or federal legislations. A strategy, which promotes decentralization, collaboration and transparency in decision and policy-making is recommended. Multi-stakeholder research is the first step toward creating such a strategy.
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 | 0.049 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".