Yukon First Nation wildlife harvest data\ncollection and management : lessons learned and future steps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Harvested species have ecological and cultural importance.The decline of these species can impact the environment and the people that rely upon the species.Ta'an Kwäch'än Council, Teslin Tlingit Council, and Carcross Tagish First Nation organized a survey and workshop to address the role of First Nation wildlife harvest data in the co-management decision-making process.This workshop was to explore wildlife harvest data collection, data storage, uses for the data, and data's importance during Total Allowable Harvest and Basic Needs Allocation negotiations.Ta'an Kwäch'än Council hosted the workshop at The Deep Creek Centre, Lake Laberge, Yukon to allow participants, representing 10 Yukon First Nations, the opportunity to discuss wildlife harvest data collection and management.A brief historical context is required to understand the current situation.In 1973 the Yukon Native Brotherhood (YNB) wrote Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow stating grievances and potential solutions to ensure Yukon First Nations become equal with Euro-Canadians.This letter initiated negotiations with the Government of Canada, resulting in the Yukon Umbrella Final Agreement (UFA) in 1993.Since 1993, ten Yukon First Nations have signed individual Final Agreements and are self-governing nations.Yukon wildlife has been managed by two different systems.The first is based upon western philosophy and is often expressed as scientific management.Scientific managers often view themselves as separate from the environment and believe they are able to impartially manage ecosystems for a fixed goal, such as maximum yield.The second system present in the Yukon is traditional management.This system recognizes that humans are a part of the environment and that governing human activity, through cultural expectations, can maintain the environment's ability to support future generations.Chapter 16 of the Final Agreements requires All of the workshop participants provided valued insight during the round-table discussions.The participants are:Corey Edzerza, Carcross Tagish First Nation Michael Jim, Champagne Aishihik First Nation Harry Smith, Champagne
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 | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".