Recent protected area–Indigenous Peoples research articles in Canada and the USA: A meta-review
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
We conducted a meta-review of 66 peer-reviewed articles published between 2008–2020 concerning Indigenous Peoples’ interactions with protected areas in the United States of America and Canada. Our meta-analysis centered on characterizing this literature’s response to the concerns of critical Indigenous studies by examining the topical, geographic, and disciplinary scope of the literature, as well as authors’ backgrounds and the journals where research is published. We additionally considered the presence of Indigenous persons as authors and participants. We found the literature is published widely, across many journals and disciplines. The research is concentrated in a handful of states and provinces. One article explicitly used Indigenous research methods, although Indigenous research participants were common in articles outside of the disciplines of history and law. Yet, those two disciplines dominate the current literature. We conclude that the community of scholars for whom relationships between parks and Indigenous Peoples are the central research question is smaller than those for whom it is one aspect of their research agenda.
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 | 0.009 | 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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it