Weaving Together Knowledge Through Collaborative Archaeological Research in the Shúhtagot'ine Cultural Landscape
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 describe collaborative archaeological research on caribou hunting sites in the homeland of the Shúhtagot'ine in the central Mackenzie Mountains of Canada's Northwest Territories. Shúhtagot'ine Elders and cultural resource managers are working together to investigate important cultural places that are at risk of destruction from climate-driven landscape changes. We use 3 case studies to illustrate how knowledge production in the context of long-term, place-based research has led to key insights about ancestral caribou hunting sites, including perennial alpine ice patches and wood hunting structures, and how that knowledge is being mobilized to help conserve important values in the Shúhtagot'ine cultural landscape. Archaeological research promotes the sustainability of Indigenous cultural landscapes through the preservation of cultural heritage, via the recall of “landscape memories,” and by unlocking archives of ancient biological material. The process of knowledge coproduction is mutually beneficial for all participants, especially when Indigenous Elders and youth are brought together in fieldwork settings.
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 | 0.017 | 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 | 0.017 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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