Unsettling NbS: A pathway towards shifting colonial power relations in nature-based solutions research and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents a synthesis and analysis drawing from NbS Justice, NBS Indigenous and NbS more-than-human literature, Indigenous governance, Indigenous planning and coexistence planning literature. The aim of this paper is to contribute to understandings of NbS and colonialism through critical reflection, as well as provide tools for action to for researchers and practitioners. In settler-colonial contexts, NbS are colonizing by default. Colonialism operates through producing and growing power asymmetries, which exist in NbS research and practice. These power asymmetries are perpetuated and accelerated by settler NbS practitioners and researchers. However, knowledge co-production that embodies ethical space principles with Indigenous partners in NbS may support power redistribution. To support settler NbS practitioners and researchers, we present a potential process to support mutually beneficial knowledge co-production consisting of three stages; pre-engagement, internal engagement and external/collective engagement.
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 | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".