My experiences with Indigenist methodologies
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
Abstract Traditionally, geographic research and engagement with Indigenous communities have largely been developed within a western research paradigm and have historically been linked to colonial practices such as extraction and/or domination. The consequences of these research practices and paradigms have been the further marginalisation of Indigenous people globally. However, geographers are increasingly being influenced by a range of Indigenous scholars from both within and beyond the discipline who highlight the colonial foundations of geographic knowledge and the ongoing production of colonial relations, and who are calling for a decolonisation of knowledge through the use of Indigenist methodologies. After exploring this shift, this paper moves to a discussion of my engagement with research in Indigenous communities using Indigenist methodologies, including the emotions and thought processes that emerged during my own research journey, which led me to southern Guyana and the Makushi and Wapishana peoples who reside in the northern savannah environments of the Amazon basin. I conclude by sharing how I am continuing that journey using Indigenist approaches in my work in the Madre de Dios region of Peru, and by encouraging future scholars to challenge traditional geographic research methods.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it