Undergraduate curricula in the USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia: Are we missing the mark on Indigenous peoples and parks?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples’ rights increasingly demand the attention of government agents, including protected area managers in the CANZUS states (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA). Park/Indigenous relations are a fundamental job competency for CANZUS park employees. This exploratory research draws on the curricula of 391 university major programmes to quantify the extent to which CANZUS university programmes in natural resources management, park management and allied fields might prepare aspiring CANZUS park employees to work with Indigenous peoples; I conclude the programmes generally fail to do so. Zero American park management majors in the study require Indigenous-focused coursework. In the Commonwealth countries, 52 per cent of park management programmes do so. Only 6 per cent of American natural resources management majors require such coursework, versus 45 per cent in the Commonwealth countries. This calls attention to an urgent need to improve aspiring park employees’ understanding of how their work intersects with Indigenous peoples and settler-colonialism.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".