Incorporating Biocultural Approaches in Forest Management: Insights from a Case Study of Indigenous Plant Stewardship in Maine, USA and New Brunswick, 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
Biocultural approaches promote consideration of diverse values and cultural practices into resource management. However, cultural inclusion in North American forest management is limited. Drawing on a case study of Wolastoqiyik and Mi’kmaq communities in Maine, USA and New Brunswick, Canada, we examine the practice of plant gathering, including associated values and cultural norms. Through interviews and participant observation, we find that gatherers value and care for plants and habitats that are not priorities for forest managers. Gatherers do not describe their actions in terms of management, with its connotations of dominance and control. Rather, they are guided by community-driven values and responsibilities. Our analysis suggests that their plant gathering activities align with a stewardship paradigm, which may be one useful way to characterize, legitimize and communicate approaches to caring for forests. We offer five suggestions for managers wishing to use biocultural approaches.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it