Comanaging communication crises and opportunities between Northern Secwepemc First Nations and the province of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Northern Secwepemc First Nations of central British Columbia are facing serious communication challenges in relation to the comanagement of natural resources in their traditional territories. For First Nations’ managers, communication by speaking and listening and by sharing stories continues to be important for maintaining traditional ecological knowledge and culture. However, in the dominant discourse currently used by management authorities, emphasis is placed on communication products represented in reading and writing, often in electronic format. This dichotomy is leading to communication crises, with traditional ecological knowledge being required to fit within a rigid technology of literacy. The hypothesis that the Northern Secwepemc First Nations are leading transformation initiatives toward sustainable management in their territories and that shared knowledge and responsibility emerges from new growth opportunities in crisis situations has been tested using the case study survey method for inquiry. Results indicate there is potential for transformation towards forest comanagement in Northern Secwepemc territories in times of crises; however, certain conditions such as adequate staffing, funding, and training must first exist at the site level of management for both provincial and Aboriginal managers, to make the best use of emergent opportunities for collaboration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".