Applying Density and Hotspot Analysis for Indigenous Traditional Land Use: Counter-Mapping with Wasagamack First Nation, Manitoba, 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
Traditional land-use studies display specific locations used and occupied by Indigenous Peoples in their ancestral lands to sustain their land-based livelihoods. Indigenous communities use these maps to reclaim their territories by demonstrating their current land-use and occupancy that extends vast distances beyond their reserves. To support the protection of ancestral territory against the threats of resource extraction by outsiders, we applied the density and hotspot mapping approaches to display the concentrated land use areas of 49 harvesters of Wasagamack First Nation in Manitoba, Canada. In contrast to the conventional land use mapping, which presents the land use areas as points or spots on the map, density and hotspot mapping shows areas of intensive land use and cultural significance. This paper reinforces Wasagamack Anishininews’ view that their entire ancestral territory is sacred and vital to the Wasagamack First Nation and supports their case for their traditional territory’s self-governance. If integrated with Wasagamack Anishininews’ community development goals, the density and hotspot mapping approach can facilitate land use planning for sustainable conservation of important areas for the well-being of Wasagamack First Nation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 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