Indigenous food sovereignty: embodying Nuu-chah-nulth principles of ʔuʔaałuk (to take care of), ʔiisaak (to be respectful) and hišukʔiš cawaak (everything is interconnected) in policy and practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, the author discusses how Indigenous People are enacting food sovereignty and revitalising our sacred relationships to our ancestral homelands. The author asserts that food sovereignty must honour the wisdom and values of ancestral knowledge in maintaining responsible and respectful relationships with the natural world. Hence, for Tseshaht/Nuu-chah-nulth people, food sovereignty is grounded in our philosophies of ʔuʔaałuk, to take care of, ʔiisaak, to be respectful, and hišukʔiš c̓awaak, everything is interconnected. The author analyses how/if Indigenous food sovereignty can be realised through Canadian domestic policy reform, utilising articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as a framework. The chapter argues that, while political and legal recognition of Indigenous rights can be significant to Indigenous self-determination and food sovereignty, placing emphasis on a rights-based discourse that focuses on state political and legal recognition of Indigenous rights rather than food sovereignty initiatives within our communities is to be questioned.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".