Review of participation of Indigenous peoples in plastics pollution governance
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
Abstract While calls for Indigenous participation in plastics pollution governance are increasingly common, exactly what participation means remains unclear. This review investigates how English-language peer-reviewed and gray literature describe Indigenous participation and its barriers and analyzes the dominant terms, models, enactments, and theories of Indigenous participation in plastics pollution work. We find that different actors – Indigenous people and organizations, non-Indigenous authors, mixed collaborations, and settler governments and NGOs – are talking about participation in acutely different ways. Non-Indigenous actors tend to focus on the inclusion of Indigenous people, either as data, knowledge, or a presence in existing frameworks. Mixed Indigenous and non-Indigenous author groups focus on partnership and collaboration, though with significant diversity in terms of what modes of decision-making, rights, and leadership these collaborations entail. Indigenous authors and organization advocate for participation premised on Indigenous rights, sovereignty, creation, and leadership. We end by characterizing Indigenous Environmental Justice (IEJ) in the literature. IEJ provides a notably unique way of understanding and intervening in plastics pollution. The text is designed so researchers and organizers can be more specific, deliberate, and just in the way Indigenous peoples participate in plastic pollution research, initiatives, and governance.
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) | 0.000 | 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