MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076373158 · doi:10.1177/030437540703200106

Pathways of “Indigenous Knowledge” in Yunnan, China

2007· article· en· W2076373158 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlternatives Global Local Political · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChina's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousBiodiversityChinaTraditional knowledgeState (computer science)Cash cropPoliticsAgroforestryGeographyAgriculturePolitical scienceEconomic growthEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the word indigenous is prohibited in China, indigenous knowledge was adopted by a Chinese NGO in Kunming in 1995 to focus on minority farmers' land uses that protect biodiversity. The author's research on Akha farmers in southern Yunnan traced Akha land use from 1950 to 2006, assessing the effects of changing political economies, especially the 1980s switch to a neoliberal path, on Akha land management. Akha practices that maintained biodiversity persisted through collectivization (1958–82) and economic reforms (1982–1997), but have almost disappeared since the 1998 state policies reclaiming villagers' forests and sloping agricultural lands. Aspects of neoliberalism that combined crisis environmentalism with state development plans have removed Akha land uses that protected biodiversity more effectively than socialist collectivism did. Links between indigenous knowledge and biodiversity are called into question as Akha farmers plant monoculture cash crops on remaining lands.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.328 · 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