Plants and habitats — a consideration of Dene ethnoecology in northwestern CanadaThis paper was submitted for the Special Issue on Ethnobotany, inspired by the Ethnobotany symposium organized by Alain Cuerrier, Montréal Botanical garden, and held in Montréal at the 2006 annual meeting of the Canadian Botanical Association/l’Association botanique du Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses local understanding of plants and habitats, based on the linguistic evidence [terms for plants and (or) habitats] gathered from ethnobotanical and ethnoecological field work conducted with several Dene Nations of the Canadian northwestern boreal forest and adjacent regions. Nations involved in the study include Gwich’in (Mackenzie Delta Region), Sahtú’otine’ (Great Bear Lake), Kaska Dena (southern Yukon), and Witsuwit’en (northwest British Columbia). Key plant-related habitats include meadow, “swamp”, forest, “willows”, and “brush”. The ethnobotanical classification of willows is explored in conjunction with the explanation of the Dene habitat concept. In local classifications, ‘willow’ is not co-extensive with the genus Salix , but includes a variety of medium to tall woody shrubs that lack either conspicuous flowers, ‘berries’, or thorns; these may include shrubby species of Salix, Alnus , Cornus , and Betula . Shoreline and alpine environments are also discussed as plant habitats. Dene use of alpine environments and resources is ancient, according to the results of recent alpine ice patch research in the Yukon region. The Human dimensions of habitat knowledge are presented. Indigenous concepts of plant taxa and of landscape associations or habitats may differ substantially from those of scientific botany and ecology, and are based in a holistic and interactive ethnoecology.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".