Expert knowledge, collaborative concepts, and universal nature: naming the place of Indigenous knowledge within a public-sector cultural burning program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigates whether a cultural burning program embedded within a government bureaucracy can meaningfully support Indigenous peoples’ landscape fires. In particular, it presents evidence on how Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals encountered, interpreted, and prioritized the influence of wildfire science, ecological science, and Indigenous expert knowledge communities. All interviewees considered the knowledge and authority of Indigenous people, specifically the Traditional Custodians, as inseparable to the program. Four moves were made to build support for Indigenous expert knowledge: the reconsideration of who has expert evidence; who has systems of knowledge creation; whose knowledge is relevant across time; and whose knowledge is relevant across contexts. The results reveal how some strongly held non-Indigenous precepts about expert evidence shifted, where knowledge sharing challenges persisted, and the constraints of the governance context. The study recommends material investment in Indigenous peoples’ expert knowledge communities, and prioritizing reflexive research, learning, and teaching about nature and evidence across academia.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".