MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3059784805 · doi:10.18666/jpra-2020-10251

Eurocentric Lens to Indigenous Methods of Sharing Knowledge in Jasper National Park, Canada

2020· article· en· W3059784805 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jason W. Johnston, Courtney W. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Park and Recreation Administration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousNational parkTourismSignageTraditional knowledgePolitical scienceRecreationGeographyLawArchaeologyBusinessAdvertisingEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to the current conservation and preservation mandates, national parks in Canada were established in part to develop tourism and resource extraction industries. Indigenous peoples were often forcibly relocated to reserves, their landuse practices made illegal, and their rights ignored. Jasper National Park (JNP), the largest park in the Canadian Rockies (11,228 km2), attracts millions of annual visitors. While numerous Indigenous nations have traditional territory within the current borders of the park, JNP was established without consultation with, or consideration for, those nations. This lack of consideration endures today with the deficiency of the representations of Indigenous peoples in interpretive signage and programming in JNP and the lack of integration in decision making processes. While visiting JNP, visitors are exposed to some of the cultural histories of Indigenous peoples. These Indigenous histories are overwhelmingly presented from Eurocentric perspectives. This perpetuates negative stereotypes of Indigenous peoples that are problematic in several respects. Our research was guided by Indigenous methodologies. Members of the Jasper Indigenous Forum (JIF) and the JNP management team participated in semistructured interviews that provide insight into how park management works with Indigenous peoples in an attempt to incorporate their cultural histories in respectful and impactful ways. The JIF, composed of 26 Indigenous communities, was not established until 2006. JNP management currently have no legal duty to act on the JIF’s recommendations or concerns, as the JIF remains an unofficial advisory committee. Many Indigenous peoples in the region have lost their connections to some of their cultural histories due to the forced removals from the park and subsequent waves of targeted cultural repression instituted by the Canadian government. While there is a desire to increase Indigenous representation in JNP, funding and institutional constraints within Parks Canada are major barriers. Few tangible suggestions or related projects have been undertaken to remedy inadequate representations. JNP management displays a lack of appreciation for, and understandings of, the negative impacts misrepresentations can have on Indigenous communities. This research suggests that increasing cultural awareness and acting on JIF recommendations will not only benefit JNP management, but also park visitors, and Indigenous communities alike.Subscribe to JPRA

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0380.040
Scholarly communication0.0200.008
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Park and Recreation AdministrationSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207