Development and conservation: indigenous businesses and the UNDP Equator Initiative
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
Does indigenous entrepreneurship have distinctive features? We explored resources used, benefits produced and nature of partnerships in 42 indigenous cases in the UNDP Equator Initiative database, mainly involving forestry, agro-forestry, agriculture, NTFPs, ecotourism and protected areas. The cases showed a strong focus on social enterprise and cultural values, and politics of resource access. Many indigenous groups sought control over their traditional lands as essential to rebuilding their societies, and indigenous entrepreneurship was often used as a tool towards self-governance. The cases were characterised by extensive networks, with a large number of partners at the same level of social and political organisation (horizontal inkages). Vertical linkages typically involved three or four levels of political organisation. These connections went far beyond business networking and included, for example, environmental knowledge building. Partnerships for training and institution building often involved NGOs or local-level government agencies or both, but rarely (N=2) non-indigenous joint ventures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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