MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W238135897

Stories from Guatemala and North America: Why Indigenous Beliefs Matter in the Debate on Genetically Engineered Food

2006· article· en· W238135897 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shiri Pasternak

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth law review · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTraditional knowledgeEnvironmental ethicsColonialismGenetically modified foodConsumption (sociology)Indigenous rightsGovernment (linguistics)SociologyPolitical scienceLawSocial scienceGenetically modified organismEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous peoples do not share a common religion, but almost all share a history of colonialism and Christian missionization. Cultural practices relating to food production and consumption have been central to preserving and transmitting to future generations local ecological knowledge, social institutions, ethnic identity, and spiritual teachings. Food practices, including prohibitions, evince an extraordinary body of knowledge passed down orally over generations, and these practices have been increasingly threatened by a widespread transition from locally produced and prepared food to the consumption of marketed, globally sourced, refined, and processed foods. According to Debra Harry, Director of the Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism, genetically engineered foods represent to indigenous peoples worldwide both the extension of an on-going colonial destruction of their local knowledge systems and a violation or desecration of the natural world. While genetically engineered seeds are being marketed and distributed around the world through agribusiness, food aid programs, and government agents, little attention has been paid by scholars to the religious and spiritual reservations of indigenous peoples to this technology. In this paper, Born from Bears and Corn: Why Indigenous Beliefs Matter in the Debate on Genetically Engineered Food, written with Lorenzo Magzul and Nancy Turner for a forthcoming book anthology of religious perspectives on genetically engineered food, we explore the ways that indigenous food practices are tied inextricably to sustaining ecological health often through food taboos, prohibitions, and spiritual teachings that impart a respect for the integrity of the earth and its life-forms. These complex forms of knowledge and socialities represent world fviews that integrate and inform community organization and are based on direct dependence on the natural world. In this paper, we selected two research methods we felt most effectively narrate particular indigenous perspectives on transgenes in food. Lorenzo Magzul and Shiri Pasternak travelled to Guatemala to conduct focus groups in Magzul's hometown of Patzun with the local Mayan community and Nancy Turner sent out questionnaires to indigenous people in North America. Thirteen people participated in the North American focus group, including six males and seven females. Of these, over eight different North American indigenous nations were represented, including: Cherokee Nation, Wasco (Warm Springs Confederacy, and other nations), Gwich'in, Metis, Mohawk, Haida, Nuu-Chah-Nulth (three different communities) and Straits Salish (two communities). …

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 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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth law reviewSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207