Case study: Applying the <i>resist–accept–direct</i> framework to an Ojibwe Tribe's relationship with the natural world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ojibwe Tribes' approach to the natural world is guided by the original treaties between beings (species and spirits) and the Ojibwe people who reside in lands now known as the United States and Canada. Relationships with these beings, such as ogaa (walleye Sander vitreus ), are best characterised as taking care of a relative/gift for the next seven generations of Ojibwe. Initial denial of treaty rights by the state government has strongly influenced tribes' relationship with their relatives for over 100 years. Ogaa stocks and natural reproduction have declined in the Minocqua Chain of Lakes (Wisconsin, USA) over the last 20 years. Region‐wide declines in ogaa have been attributed to many stressors such as overharvest by state‐licensed anglers, invasive species and climate change. Here, we retroactively applied the resist–accept–direct (RAD) framework to the process used to create an interjurisdictional rehabilitation plan for the Minocqua Chain of Lakes. Specifically, we cover the following: progress to date on the rehabilitation plan; subsistence, cultural and spiritual challenges associated with resisting ecosystem change; unforeseen obstacles to rehabilitation; re‐evaluation of the relationship with ogaa; unknowns; and contingency plans from a tribal perspective. Lastly, we discuss how the RAD framework could become more useful to tribes in the region.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".