MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116039401 · doi:10.1139/facets-2024-0344

Perspectives of Cree land users on the performance of fish habitat compensation projects in Eeyou Istchee

2025· article· en· W7116039401 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicQ Methodology Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
FundersMitacs
KeywordsHabitatCompensation (psychology)Relevance (law)DamagesFish <Actinopterygii>IndigenousTraditional knowledge

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eeyou Istchee is the ancestral home of the Cree Nation in Northern Quebec, and is changing rapidly due to extensive industrial development, including forestry, hydropower, and mining. Efforts are being made to offset the resulting damages to freshwater ecosystems via fish habitat compensation projects, after efforts are first made to avoid and minimize harm, with the goal of No Net Loss of fish habitat productivity. Currently, the success and relevance of Canadian fish habitat compensation projects is primarily assessed through scientific knowledge, while their success and relevance in Eeyou Istchee according to Cree Indigenous knowledge is currently unknown. We used Q-methodology to assess the perspectives of Cree land users regarding fish habitat compensation in Eeyou Istchee, to evaluate the need, success, and relevance of these projects, and provide recommendations for future fish habitat compensation projects within the region that consider the perspectives of Cree land users. Our findings express three main recommendations: (1) prioritization of local knowledge and governance, (2) effective remediation of water contamination, and (3) integration of the tallyman system with fish habitat compensation. Addressing these recommendations raised by Cree land users is likely to increase the success and relevance of fish habitat compensation projects in Eeyou Istchee.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.176
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicQ Methodology ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207