Reflection, Acknowledgement, and Justice: A Framework for Indigenous-Protected Area Reconciliation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protected areas have been both tools and beneficiaries of settler colonialism in places such as Canada, Australia, and the United States, to the detriment of Indigenous nations. While some agencies, such as Parks Canada, increasingly partner with Indigenous nations through co-management agreements or on Indigenous knowledge use in protected area management, I believe such efforts fall short of reconciliation. For protected areas to reconcile with Indigenous Peoples, they must not incorporate Indigeneity into existing settler-colonial structures. Instead, agencies must commit to an Indigenous-centered project of truth telling, acknowledging harm, and providing for justice. I begin this article by outlining what is meant by reconciliation. I then argue for protected area-Indigenous reconciliation. I conclude with a framework for Indigenous–settler reconciliation within protected areas.
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 | 0.061 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.157 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".