Building bridges in the backcountry: a case study of design in the headwaters region of the Oldman watershed
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing pressures on the Eastern Slopes in Southern Alberta are leading to escalated tensions and debates of sustainable public land use, access, and management for the region. This research project was a case study of the bridge building design project initiated by the Crowsnest Pass Quad Squad. The purpose of this research was to investigate the bridge building design process to discover applications that can be taken from this practical design approach to the concept of biocultural design. Opportunities for learning and changed perspectives were also observed through participant observation, interviews, and design workshops as the ATV users seek to mitigate their own impact. Research findings suggest the importance of a biocultural design team and explicit guiding coordinates, or key values, that will guide the design process the team implements. The bridge building program provides lessons that can be considered in the practice of biocultural design; namely, innovations have led to stronger and more efficient bridges, opportunities for collaboration and participation have yielded platforms for learning to occur, and collective social action has taken place as participants seek to mitigate their impact within the Eastern Slopes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".