Braiding Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences in the Alberta oil sands region: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The braiding of Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences offers insights into ecology and has emerged as a way to help address complex environmental issues. We reviewed the publicly available ecological research involving the braiding of Indigenous knowledge systems and Western-based sciences to support collaborative work in the Alberta oil sands region of Canada. We conducted a systematic review, coding for 78 questions in six categories: (1) literature search and bibliographic information; (2) research themes; (3) study setting and design; (4) knowledge systems; (5) power relationships, colonization, and ethical considerations in research; and (6) benefits and challenges of braiding. We identified six articles that braided knowledge, with those articles focusing on environmental management and monitoring for impacts of industrial activity in northern Alberta. Researchers used a broad range of approaches to gather Indigenous knowledge and scientific data and identified multiple challenges (e.g., asymmetries of power, resource availability, and funding) to research. Our findings show that more support is needed to foster, promote, and disseminate interdisciplinary collaborative work involving braiding. Additional support is also required to address Indigenous community research needs related to the assessment of environmental impact and reclamation, as well as the understanding of ecological threats across 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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".