Deepening the debate over ‘sustainable science’: Indigenous perspectives as a guide on the journey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article engages with the concept of sustainable science as articulated by those eager to address and correct environmentally destructive tendencies in western scientific theory and practice. We first reflect on the widespread resistance among western scientists to accord the designation of ‘science’ to other cultural enterprises of inquiry. Focusing on the example of Native American approaches to nature and knowledge, we caution that this pervasive sense of superiority has blocked recognition of reasonable paths to a new science even amongst those eager to incorporate elements of Indigenous thinking into their worldviews. Finally, we argue that the explorations of the natural world as found in Indigenous science can be seen to represent an alternative mode of rigorous, systematic inquiry – a ‘full‐spectrum’ approach – demonstrating the practical potential for truly sustainable science. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 it