Rethinking sustainable development by following Indigenous approaches to community wellbeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores two concepts of community wellbeing informed by Indigenous perspectives: Buen Vivir and Comunalidad. We critically examine the current use and practice of these concepts and their potential influence in practices oriented to sustainable development. We argue that instead of continuing to apply the siloed international frameworks of sustainability (a prevalent tendency that to date has marginalized and alienated Indigenous ways of knowing), collaborative sustainable development efforts involving Indigenous communities should be grounded in local understandings of community wellbeing. Such understandings include intrinsically dynamic, interconnected, multileveled, fluid, inclusive, and holistic ideas (from both, Western and Indigenous perspectives) related to what it means to live and be well in terms of the distinctive knowledges of each community. Our findings suggest that this approach can further the success of practitioners and scholars’ collaborative work in the field of sustainable development with Indigenous communities. An overarching dimension in these implications is to emphasize the importance of locally grounded knowledges in informing policies that direct public resources and regulatory frameworks related to the sustainable development of Indigenous communities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".