Using two-eyed seeing to bridge Western science and Indigenous knowledge systems and understand long-term change in the Saskatchewan River Delta, Canada
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
Although researchers now recognize that Indigenous knowledge can strengthen environmental planning and assessment, little research has empirically demonstrated how to bring together Indigenous knowledge and Western science to form a more complete picture of social-ecological change. This study attempts to fill this gap by using ‘two-eyed seeing’ – an approach that brings together Indigenous and Western perspectives on an equal basis – to collect and analyze changes in the Saskatchewan River Delta since upstream dams were built in the 1960s. Results found corroboration across the knowledge systems that operation of dams has lowered summer flows and created unnaturally high winter flows. The knowledge systems, however, diverged in some areas, such as the production of northern pike, where local residents observed abundant pike but records showed the pike commercial harvest declining to near zero. Indigenous knowledge alone provided information about berries and berry seasons. This two-eyed seeing approach can enhance environmental assessment and planning by providing a more accurate and coherent narrative of long-term social-ecological change.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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