MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969470624 · doi:10.1080/08941920801898341

Representing Traditional Knowledge: Resource Management and Inuit Knowledge of Barren-Ground Caribou

2008· article· en· W1969470624 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anne Kendrick, Micheline Manseau

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety & Natural Resources · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTraditional knowledgeResource (disambiguation)Resource management (computing)WildlifeEnvironmental resource managementGeographyNatural resource managementWildlife managementEnvironmental planningNatural resourceEcologyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comanagement regimes in Canada's North rarely include indigenous systems for understanding the environment. Mapped representations and accompanying narratives illustrating the collective knowledge of indigenous hunters can make unique management contributions. Both the multigenerational knowledge of indigenous communities and opportunities allowing a discussion of diverse ways of interpreting environmental observations are crucial to involving indigenous learning systems within current regional wildlife management. It is not just the factual “data” of indigenous hunters that are relevant to resource management. It is the opportunities for social learning or for resource managers to understand how indigenous hunters learn about the environment that are directly relevant to resource management decision making.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations69
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety & Natural ResourcesSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207