Learning Conceptual Diversity through Caribou Co-management
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
"The recognition of a diversity of conceptual systems is essential to any exploration of the links between social and ecological systems. This paper focuses on caribou co-management as a possible case study of the evolution of conceptual pluralism in practice. While acknowledging the significance of the political power dynamics between state and community, this discussion examines co-management from a different angle, that of learning and the accommodation of varied ways of knowing. \n \n "The question of how humans learn to learn and specifically how we learn to respect (not necessarily apprehend) other ways of knowing is represented here as an examination of humility - a respect for diverse realities. Humility is central to a needed dialectic or "new mode of conversation" (Bateson 1991:306), a veritable "economics of flexibility" of human thought (Bateson 1991:158). \n \n "Co-management literature describes co-management 'inefficiencies' as the continued divergence in the attitudes and beliefs of state managers and community resource users (Kruse et al. 1998). Alternatively, co-management "failures" may signify the continued potential for the 'successful' respect of conceptual pluralism. The lasting differences between the beliefs and attitudes of local resource users and state managers, may reveal much about the evolution of humility. For instance, continued differences between caribou users and government managers perceptions of caribou population dynamics (see Kruse et al. 1998) represents a significant epistemological problem - the reconciliation of different ways of thinking. Epistemologically-speaking, co-management may contain clues about how to overcome human beings deficit of what we are able to know and think (Bateson 1991:x) and in this century an increasing tendency to homogenize how we are able to know and think. \n \n "Currently, dominant global ideologies emphasize the "one-sided divorce, not only from nature but also from our own biology, and thus of course from our very selves" (Livingston 1981:82) leading to a mismatch between human behaviour and natural processes. This mismatch has strong implications for the human capacity to think about living processes and to act on this knowledge. In other words, how we learn about social-ecological linkages is as important as what we learn about these links. Caribou co-management systems are examples of the negotiation of the mismatch between human behaviour and ecological processes. The discrepancy between the thought and belief systems of traditional caribou users and government caribou managers may lead to significant integrative and complex learning about human-environment relations rather than dominant ways of thinking marginalizing alternative thought. \n \n "First, this paper explores the limitations of all conceptual realities due to the nature of language and human thought patterns. The presuppositions of the most prevalent conceptual reality in the world today, western science, is also explored in relation to the nature of human language. Second, the paper examines co-management, specifically caribou co-management in arctic and subarctic North America, for evidence of the evolution of the trust and the humility necessary for the maintenance of diverse conceptual constructs. Third, the integrative nature of metaphor and belief systems and the relationship between resource management effectiveness and human purpose is outlined. Finally, it is suggested that the learning occurring in cross-cultural and mainly informal co-management settings may lead to the metaphors, in essence, conceptual diversity."
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,018 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,020 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».