Operationalizing the biocultural perspective part II: A review of biocultural action principles since The Declaration of Belém
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In part 1 of our review of the biocultural conservation literature - conducted in 2019 - we utilized a rapid appraisal approach to determine that while the biocultural perspective was born within the action-oriented and Indigenous People and Local Community (IPLC)-Centered Declaration of Belém, the subsequent scientific discussion remained largely in a conceptual holding pattern. In Part 2, we reengage the literature later in time - mid-2021 - and with a more intensive qualitative analysis methodology to pursue the trends we observed and to more deeply perceive and comprehend the operating principles of the most impactful biocultural action research, which we define as research that fulfills the clear prescriptions of the Declaration of Belém. Toward these ends, we develop and utilize a systematic review methodology including thematic analysis, appreciative inquiry, and collaborative analysis. Our findings not only show an increasing concentration of action-orientation in the emerging literature, but identify and increase comprehension of the core operating principles for biocultural action. We determine that biocultural studies adhered to the following principles: 1) honor IPLC place attachment; 2) rigorously engage with IPLC's; 3) valorize cultural survival and continuity; 4) invert power dynamics; and 5) cultivate new insights. Our results represent a one-of-a-kind diagnostic on the fulfillment of the Declaration of Belém's prescriptions in conservation scholarship and practice, as well as a roadmap for practicing scholars and policy-makers intent on guaranteeing IPLC environmental leadership. These newly forged resources further point the way toward understanding and operationalizing the biocultural perspective as a strategic vision.
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 | 0.081 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".