Towards Community-Owned Forests: Landowner Perspectives on the Blackfoot Community Conservation Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Duvall, Alison, M.S., Autumn 2006 Environmental Studies Towards Community-Owned Forests: Landowner Perspectives on the Blackfoot Community Conservation Area Chairperson: Dr. Jill Belsky The Blackfoot Community Project is a partnership among the Blackfoot Challenge, a landowner-based watershed organization in the Blackfoot Valley and The Nature Conservancy to purchase and re-sell up to 88,092 acres of mid-elevation Plum Creek Timber Company lands to private and public interests as an alternative to subdivision and fragmentation of the landscape. In line with the project’s goal to maintain the working landscapes of the Blackfoot Valley and rural lifestyle through a “community-driven” process, the partnership has proposed to set aside 5,600 areas of these former timberlands to create the Blackfoot Community Conservation Area (BCCA), an innovative institutional arrangement involving community-ownership. This study is a participatory research project to provide systematic information on questions raised by project leaders concerning the future ownership and management of the BCCA. Its main methods include ongoing participant observation and a mail survey to adjacent landowners of the proposed BCCA to document their priorities and perspectives related to BCCA ownership, management and use. The majority of landowners in the study either supported “community ownership” through the Blackfoot Challenge or raised concerns and asked for more information before making a decision. There was strong support for managing the BCCA for a variety of purposes to meet ecological and social benefits including wildlife habitat, weed management, wetlands/riparian areas, public access, recreation, rangelands/grazing and timber. The thesis emphasizes the importance of developing a BCCA management plan and process that considers all expressed views, though it recognizes the necessity of tradeoffs especially given many value differences between new and generational landowners, especially with regard to the issue of motorized recreational use.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".