Co-Management Efforts as Social Movements: The Tin Wis Coalition and the Drive for Forest Practices Legislation in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"In 1991, a model forest practices act that would radically transform methods of forest management in British Columbia was proposed by a coalition of First Nations, trade unions, environmentalists and small businesses. If implemented, the Tin Wis Forest Stewardship Act would see the province of British Columbia give a prominent forest management role to bioregional boards. The proposed legislation followed two decades of activism in the community forestry movement in BC and represented an attempt to institute a co-management agreement between the provincial government and the communities, aboriginal people and other stakeholders most affected by forestry practices in the long run. \n \n"The effort to write and raise support tor the Forest Stewardship Act provides an important opportunity to consider new middle-range theoretical propositions predicting the conditions under which co-management agreements successfully arise and persist. Co-management of Crown or state-owned forests in particular is an ideal vehicle for exploring co-management because of the numerous and tightly entwined resources involved in a forest ecosystem: fisheries, wildlife and water all 'flow through' the forest and have complex symbiotic relationships which are affected by changes to the forest."
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".