The knowledge that went up in smoke: Reindeer herders’ traditional knowledge of smoked reindeer meat in literature
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 Using a literature review, this paper defines the knowledge status of smoked reindeer meat and investigates to what degree reindeer herders’ traditional knowledge has been included in scientific articles and grey literature. We developed a four-level categorisation of the degree of including traditional knowledge, from “non-participation” to “self-determination,” and three levels of focus. Very few scientific articles on smoked or smoking reindeer meat appeared in the review. Not only did reindeer peoples’ traditional meat smoking knowledge “went up in smoke”—both literally and metaphorically—but also incorrect conclusions were often drawn as a result of that exclusion. We argue that reindeer herders’ traditional knowledges and practices of smoking reindeer meat need examination and inclusion through co-production or self-determination methods across scientific disciplines.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it