Welcome to Country: Geographical valuations and devaluations of First Nations’ presence on Country in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First Nations’ custodianship of Country has provided incalculable benefits to Australia. Geographical devaluation of this custodianship has been central to settler colonial and later governmental economic and development policy that worked/s to remove First Nations from Country. Indeed, the negation of First Nations sovereignties to extract value from the environment for non-Indigenous dividends underpins the development and operation of state-directed economic activity in Australia. As a result, how First Nations are valued, or not, is tied to cultural, political and economic ideas about First Nations’ presence on Country. Welcome to Country ceremonies exemplify the complexities associated with geographical valuations of First Nations’ presence. Such ceremonies incentivise labour demands for Elder and older First Nations to enact language and culturally specific custodianship even as broader non-Indigenous institutions are hostile to self-determined development and Indigenous sovereignties. The article provides a theoretical account of the geographical valuations and modelling tendencies with respect to First Nations economic development that focus on the state as the key interlocutor. Where scholarship draws attention to the role of the state as recognising the cultural rather than economic dimension of First Nations activities, Welcome to Country ceremonies demonstrate the importance of regional and local scales of First Nations sovereign practices. First Nations and Elder capacities to perform these ceremonies are both a normalised and under-considered element of regional development activities. Welcome to Country constitutes an important case site for understanding the complex interactions between First Nations axiologies and non-Indigenous geographical valuations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".