Sustainable development of Aboriginal traditional territories: Identifying guiding ecological values, principles and management challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The environment is integral to Canadian Aboriginal worldviews and livelihoods. As such, many Canadian Aboriginal groups have begun generating sustainable development plans to facilitate the responsible development of their traditional territories. These plans identify Aboriginal ecological values and management principles, and in some cases, outline relationship protocols to guide interactions between Aboriginal and proponent stakeholders, to address challenges faced by Aboriginal groups during traditional territory development. For such plans and protocols to facilitate the sustainable development of Aboriginal territories, a thorough understanding of Aboriginal ecological valued components, management principles, and the challenges Aboriginal actors encounter during development, is needed. Thus, the goal of this study was to review and synthesize valued ecological components, management principles, and challenges, identified by Aboriginal groups across Canada. I found that valued ecological components are discussed more prevalently than principles, which are noted more frequently than challenges. The most prominently noted valued ecological components were harvestable wildlife groups, like plants and game, and the habitats that support them. The most frequently noted management principles were stewardship and sustainable development principles, integral to the Aboriginal worldview. Other principles, like predator management and environmental manipulation, were less prominently noted but contested between Aboriginal groups. Lastly, the most pervasive challenges noted included knowledge and participation barriers, miscommunications between Aboriginals and other stakeholders, and the rapid pace of development in traditional territories. Overall, deliberate sustainable development planning, which incorporates Aboriginal values and principles, and addresses challenges associated with development, including those relating to stakeholder relationships, is important for ensuring that Aboriginal rights and environmental visions associated with their territories are realised.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".