Feasibility Analysis of Free-Use Permits for the Development of a Cedar Conservation Strategy: Haida Gwaii/Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historically, cedar has been the cultural keystone species of the Haida First Nation. At present, due to a variety of pressures on the resource, an effective strategy is required for the conservation of western redcedar (Thu/a plicata) and yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) for traditional and cultural uses by the Haida First Nation in Haida Gwaii/ Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia One approach, the "Coast Forest Region Guidelines for Managing Cedar for Cultural Purposes" outlines three preliminaiy requirements for the development of a cedar conservation strategy: a)identify cultural cedar needs, b) assess cultural cedar supply, and c) formulate management decisions and recommendations based on these results. The current study focuses on the first requirement, cedar needs, by undertaking an analysis of free-use permits (FUPs) issued by the Ministry of Forests, British Columbia for the harvesting of Crown timber for cultural purposes (Section 49, Forest Act). Through an analysis of FUP records data current cultural cedar uses are identified, recent trends in cedar use and demand over time are quantified, and estimates of future cedar volumes required by the Haida for the short and long-term are projected. Minimum target volumes for the conservation of red and yellow cedar for future cultural uses are derived from these. Parameters regarding accessibility requirements for cultural cedar trees are discussed. Results indicate that if future trends in cultural cedar use continue at a rate similar to the recent demand, a steady increasing trend over time, the potential annual target volume may be estimated at I I, 720m3 by 2050. This study will determine the feasibility of using FUPs, the only data available to the Ministry of Forests, to predict the scope of future cultural cedar demand in Haida Gwaii/ Queen Charlotte Islands, and propose further recommendations for reliable cedar conservation planning.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".