Navigating science in society: Multiple Ways of Knowing - Exploring the Commonalities and Differences between Indigenous Knowledge and Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6th International Conference on Science in Society, Vancouver, Canada. Indigenous peoples worldwide have had varied interactions with science, and similarly the science academy’s relationship with the ‘indigenous’ has also varied. For many years indigenous knowledge (IK) has been considered incompatible with western empirical based science, mainly due to differences in knowledge inquiry and transfer, as well as more fundamental beliefs about the inseparable nature of material and non-material aspects of the universe held by the former. Increasingly however, commonalities between the two are being recognised. Both scientists and IK holders, and in particular practitioners, are beginning to work with each other. The recognition that aspects of IK have been generated following the scientific method affords the exciting opportunity to explore how IK can be integrated with science to add to our collective understanding. In this paper I will (i) demonstrate that in the field of natural hazards and disasters research IK can be viewed as an encoded database of natural hazard events and (ii) discuss a method by which to un-encode the database. Accordingly, this research affords the unique opportunity to explore and build a relationship between IK and science, in essence putting indigenous society into science.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".