Adaptation through bricolage: Indigenous responses to long‐term social‐ecological change in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Social and ecological change in Canada's north challenges Indigenous communities to develop responses that secure the continuation of their livelihoods. Although there is significant evidence that effective response and adaptation opportunities exist in Indigenous communities, understanding of how such locally developed adaptations are constructed remains limited. This paper develops and applies the concept of bricolage to demonstrate how Indigenous societies build their adaptive capacity to address long‐term social‐ecological change. Our concept bridges institutional and productive forms of bricolage to explain how individuals and households make conscious decisions and adjustments to retain their livelihoods. The results of long‐term engagement with residents of Cumberland House, Saskatchewan through field observations, oral histories, and semi‐structured interviews demonstrate that Indigenous peoples improvise, hybridize, contest, and negotiate existing practices to create different kinds of adaptive arrangements. We find, further, that whereas certain livelihood practices have changed, cultural norms such as respect and reciprocity have remained. Our findings strengthen the argument that Indigenous peoples are well‐positioned to take direct roles in adaptation; hence, decision makers should consider them equal partners in adaptation decisions and learn from locally developed responses to focus adaptation planning on the relevant needs of Indigenous 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".