An Indigenous Research Narrative: Ethics and Protocols Over Time and Space
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
This narrative begins in 1950, a conversation between Sam Jim, an Indigenous Elder in British Columbia (BC), and a university professor researching Sam’s community. Sam troubles the privileging of Western thinking, knowledge, values, and practices. The story fast-forwards to a contemporary research partnership between an Indigenous researcher, the same BC Indigenous community and an Indigenous community in Peru. Each community faces different struggles in protecting their lands from resource extraction and in regenerating traditional ecological knowledges for future generations. They meet these challenges by reviving their traditional knowledges and practices, including human and more-than-human interrelationships and interdependencies. The communities have different cosmologies, histories, geographies, languages, economies, and socio-political contexts. This requires research methodologies and methods that acknowledge the challenges and opportunities of working across different contexts toward more complex, culturally inclusive possibilities for living together on a shared planet.
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 | 0.016 | 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 | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| 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