MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070613071 · doi:10.3138/n752-n693-180t-n843

Indigenous Knowledge, Mapping, and GIS: A Diffusion of Innovation Perspective

2004· article· en· W2070613071 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Kimberlee J. Chambers, Jonathan Michael Swan Corbett, Christina Keller, Colin Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPerspective (graphical)Traditional knowledgeKnowledge managementSociologyInnovation diffusionGeographyEngineering ethicsEngineeringComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores the relationship between Indigenous knowledge, mapping, and contemporary GIS applications. It commences with an introduction to Indigenous peoples and Indigenous knowledge, as well as a review of reasons why Indigenous peoples are mapping. Using a diffusion of innovation model as an organizational framework, the article then examines the adoption and use of GIS by Indigenous peoples, based on published literature as well as on the authors' fieldwork, personal observations, and experiences. Attention is drawn to research areas and issues that seem lacking or are poorly addressed. Suggestions for future inquiry to advance understanding of the relationship between high-technology mapping and the recording and communication of Indigenous knowledge are offered.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.016
Scholarly communication0.0070.011
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations42
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and GeovisualizationSame topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207