An Indigenous Research Narrative: Ethics and Protocols Over Time and Space
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.
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 | 0.174 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".