Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academics, corporations, and government agencies have begun to take greater interest in conducting Indigenous Knowledge (lK) research in response to environmental issues and failures of "development projects." Indigenous scholars and communities, however, are concerned about how these research projects may affect their communities and goals towards autonomy. In order to protect their IK and minimize the possibility for misrepresentation and/or misuse, some communities insist on equal control and participation in the entire research project. This article examines the debates surrounding the definition and use of lK. I then explore a research framework based on "relationships" as one possible model that may address indigenous concerns about control, authorship, ownership, and benefits. I discuss two variations of a relationship model: one based on "reciprocity,'" the other on "covenants." I conclude that a collaborative relationship research model complements indigenous expectations and conceptions of research and begins to address indigenous concerns.
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 | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.108 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".