“Roots of Reflection”: Spiritual Aspects of Plant Harvesting, Ethnoecological Practice and Sustainability for Indigenous Peoples of northwestern North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In northwestern North America, as in other regions of the world, Indigenous peoples have developed rich systems of ethnoecological knowledge, incorporating concepts of kincentricity (kinship between humans and all other lifeforms), and caretaking philosophies that embody responsibilities to sustain, and never to take for granted, those species that provide for humans. These ideas are engrained in traditional harvesting and use of resources, as reflected in people’s ritual and ceremonial practices. In this paper, I present examples of how these philosophical approaches are reflected in human-plant interactions, particularly in relation to traditional food systems. Although in some Indigenous communities today the ritual aspects of food are not as strong as they once were, they are regaining importance as, with increased legal recognition of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, many First Nations communities are revitalizing and renewing all aspects of their cultures, languages, and ties to their lands and waters. The past and present role of camas and other traditional root vegetables in the region provides a good entrée for understanding the relationships between food use and worldview.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".