Bibliographic record
Abstract
Years ago, I visited my friend's house near Silver Star Mountain Provincial Park in the southern interior of British Columbia.My friend was a nature interpreter.She showed me her compost project and the organic vegetables in her large backyard surrounded by coniferous trees.While we chatted in the backyard, she suddenly spotted fir or hemlock seedlings coming out of the lawn.She stooped over and started picking them, complaining "the forest is reclaiming my land."My instant and politically incorrect reply to her was "Good!" "No, it's not," she murmured and uprooted those sprouting trees.Perhaps it was not good for her, but I meant to say that it was good for the forest.I still vividly remember this short conversation because it struck me to see that, even today in this seemingly humandominated world, nature maintains its resilience by reclaiming "civilization."It also struck me to know that consciously or unconsciously even nature-loving people fight against nature in their backyards to secure the boundaries of their own civilized properties.In this property-driven world, nature is "them" rather than "us."In the early 1990s, while pursuing my graduate studies in the United States and Canada, I met a fairly good number of the indigenous peoples from Australia, Canada, Japan, and the United States.Those indigenous peoples, especially in British Columbia, taught me how to keenly observe the resilience demonstrated by sprouting grassroots indigenous movements in reclaiming this property-driven world.Despite the mounting problems and difficulties they have faced, many Native youths, leaders, and elders have maintained their positive attitude toward their future by reclaiming indigenous rights and pride.By allowing me to participate in some religious practices,
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.494 | 0.299 |
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".