The challenges of mapping complex indigenous spatiality: from abstract space to dwelling space
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
Participatory mapping has become an indispensable tool in the struggle of indigenous peoples to claim their rights to land and resources. It has also, however, come under criticism for its potential to increase state regulation, replace indigenous conceptions of territory and property, and to create conflict. This paper starts from the premise that the problem is not mapping per se, but the conception of abstract space we allow to frame and guide our representation of indigenous territories, resource use and management. The development of a more effective participatory mapping practice thus requires a critical engagement with the conception of space that participatory mappers are attempting to map. Using research conducted in two Karen communities in Thailand, this paper develops a conception of `dwelling space' meant to better capture the complex spatiality of indigenous resource use and serve as a potential alternative to abstract space. I conclude by arguing for a renewed practice of community-based mapping that takes seriously the spatial complexity of indigenous territory.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it