MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7100340611

Session Seven: Protecting Special Places DEVELOPING A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION AREA IN THE BAY OF FUNDY

2015· article· en· W7100340611 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal and Marine Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayStakeholderMarine conservationStakeholder engagementMarine reserveMarine protected areaSession (web analytics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of Canada’s options for conservation, using the marine reserve approach, is Parks Canada’s National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA) program. The purpose of this program is to unite sus-tainable human activity with the protection of representative marine environments. Parks Canada has divided Canada’s oceans and Great Lakes into 29 distinct marine regions. The Bay of Fundy is one of ten such regions delineated in Atlantic Canada. With its high level of unique biological diversity and human activity, the Bay of Fundy may be a good candidate site for pursuing NMCA establishment in the near future. However, it is critical not to base NMCA establishment decisions solely on a biophysical foundation, without considering the social condition and interests of the area. The project reported here explores the potential for NMCA establishment in the Bay of Fundy by examining the current views of various members of the broadly defined Bay of Fundy community. To accomplish this, interviews were carried out with various community members and stakeholder groups. The research has resulted in a possible framework for NMCA establishment in the Bay of Fundy. The results highlight important initial steps that might be taken in order to optimize the chance of success. These steps include: establishing a non-governmental secretariat to guide the project; a broad education campaign to generate public support; early involvement and commitment from all partners and stakeholder groups; finding non-governmental project leaders from local communityies; and secur-ing funds and other resources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0190.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.007

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoastal and Marine Management→French-language works237,207→