Do We All Speak the Same Language When Talking Conservation? Caiçara Understandings of Conservation in their Landscape
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
Based on their world view, indigenous and local communities may have their own concepts of conservation, which may be different from Western ideas of conservation. Here we report the results of a photovoice study with a Caiçara community in the Juatinga Ecological Reserve, a protected area in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest region. Participants were asked to take photos of their landscape/seascape to illustrate what they understand as conservation. Photos produced by the participants served as 'boundary objects' that helped to evoke feelings, ideas, and thoughts of people-nature relationships during individual interviews, and finally during a group discussion. The results helped to explore ways to frame a Caiçara concept of conservation and highlight the importance of developing place-based conservation projects and approaches meaningful for Caiçara people. Such initiatives can help in understanding Caiçara motivations for conservation, aid partnership-building, and promote knowledge co-production between community, government managers and other stakeholders.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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