Liberating trails and travel routes in Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en Territories from the tyrannies of heritage resource management regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite their unmistakable significance in regional histories and unique roles in cultural transmission and traditions, Indigenous trail systems are frequently ignored in non‐Indigenous heritage resource management regimes. These regulatory regimes often require that heritage have discrete spatial and temporal boundaries and predefined material attributes and functions. However, as landscape‐scale connectors of peoples, places, and times that blend spiritual, economic, and educational functions, trails challenge these proscriptions. Trails eschew cost‐effective identification, documentation, and conservation. Accordingly, and because trails cannot be adequately documented without the expertise of people whose lands and communities they serve, archaeologists tasked with identifying heritage in advance of resource extraction and land alteration projects often omit trails from assessments. Shortcomings in heritage conservation regimes in British Columbia and elsewhere are resulting in the obliteration of Indigenous trails at precisely the time they are needed to support the revitalization of Territory‐Community relationships at the core of Indigeneity. We address this tragedy by integrating archaeology, ethnography, remote sensing, and collaborative fieldwork to document trails in Wet'suwet'en and Gitxsan Territories. This enables protection in heritage management contexts and renewed and expanded trail use in intergenerational and intercultural contexts in support of Indigenous community futurity, survivance, and shared senses of community, geography, and stewardship.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".