Towards Settler Responsibility in Conservation
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
This conceptual paper reviews recent efforts to confront colonialism in conservation, with an emphasis on the challenges and complexities that have emerged among settler organizations engaged in this work. We consider recent academic and grey literature in the field in order to map different approaches to conservation, including the emerging interface of Indigenous and western approaches. We also map different approaches to Indigenous engagement undertaken by settler conservation organizations, including representation, recognition, redistribution, and reparation. We suggest that regardless of their approach, in order to create the conditions for truly reciprocal collaborations with Indigenous Nations, settler conservation organizations would need to accept their responsibilities to interrupt and redress western conservation’s colonial foundations, support Indigenous sovereignty, rights, and resurgence (including by supporting Indigenous approaches to conservation), and commit to the difficult, long-haul work of reorienting their approach to relationships away from patterns of paternalism and extraction toward trust, respect, reciprocity, consent, and accountability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it