Asserting Mino Pimàdiziwin on Unceded Algonquin Territory: Experiences of a Canadian “non-status” First Nation in re-establishing its traditional land ethic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian non-status First Nations are often in conflict with more powerful private interests over resource development on their traditional lands. In response, some non-status First Nations are using traditional environmental knowledge and self-developed spiritual ecologies to reassert sovereignty over ancestral territories. One such group, the Ardoch Algonquin First Nation (AAFN), carries out traditional activities including canoe building, hunting, trapping, and harvesting manoomiin (wild rice) on their traditional lands. AAFN members have had several non-violent conflicts with outside interests over land use in recent years. Our multi-year participatory research project sought to understand AAFN's traditional spiritual ecology (mino pimàdiziwin) as practised by its members, and systematically compare it with land- use ethics underlying resource development strategies promoted by Ontario's government. The two are fundamentally at odds, creating potential for future conflicts, but some opportunities for future partnership and collaboration exist. The findings contribute to broader efforts to understand challenges faced by non-status First Nations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".