Partnerships towards NTFP development: perspectives from Pikangikum First Nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide a community perspective on partnerships with the goal of researching, designing, developing and commercializing non‐timber forest products (NTFPs) based on indigenous knowledge and resources from Pikangikum First Nation, northwestern Ontario, Canada. Design/methodology/approach Framed by the Whitefeather Forest Research Cooperative agreement, a collaborative and ethnographic research design was adopted with the Whitefeather Forest Management Corporation and the Whitefeather Forest Elders Steering Group in Pikangikum First Nation. Over the period of two years, initial research planning meetings were held with community representatives, fieldwork and interviews with community Elders and leaders were conducted, and three community workshops were held. Findings Community Elders and leaders articulated a cautious interest in developing ethical, collaborative partnerships that support the Whitefeather Forest Initiative and the community's social, cultural, economic and environmental goals. Developing NTFPs through partnerships is a procedural issue that requires giving Elders a primary role in advising and guiding partnerships at all stages of NTFP planning, research and development. Partners would be expected to build respectful and diligent partnerships that interface knowledge systems, maintain good relations, and generate mutually defined benefits. Research limitations/implications This community‐specific approach provides insight for Aboriginal groups, governments, universities, and corporations seeking to develop access and benefit sharing agreements, policies, or protocols in light of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol. Originality/value This paper offers perspectives, principles, and community member narratives from a Canadian indigenous community, Pikangikum First Nation. These perspectives describe how this community envisions potential research, development and commercialization of NTFPs through joint and mutually beneficial partnerships.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".