Ethnoecological perspectives on environmental stewardship: Tenets and basis of reciprocity in Gitxsan and nłeʔkepmx (Nlaka'pamux) Territories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Local and Indigenous Peoples steward and protect a significant proportion of biologically diverse ecosystems globally. This fact is increasingly acknowledged by researchers and international organizations, offering both opportunities and challenges at the intersection of Indigenous and western knowledge production in the context of environmental management research and policy. Drawing on half a century of ethnoecological research and personal experiences in Gitxsan and nłeʔkepmx Territories in the Pacific Northwest of North America, this research considers the role of reciprocity as an inherent philosophy and tenet for successful environmental stewardship. Reciprocity is a legal responsibility and moral perspective that foregrounds many Indigenous worldviews. Such cultural drivers and obligations towards lands and biota appear to be unknown, marginalized or instrumentalized in mainstream and western science and policy. We conclude that fundamental elements of reciprocity may not be adequately blended or braided into western environmental management frameworks. As such, alternatives to blending include acknowledging sole proprietary and self‐determining rights for Indigenous Peoples to govern and steward lands outside of western infrastructures and value systems. This study raises critical questions about the feasibility of reconciling reciprocity with western environmental management practices and regulations. It explores the implications for Indigenous rights and sovereignty, and climate change mitigation. By addressing these complex issues, we contribute to ongoing discourse on the integration of Indigenous and western knowledge in environmental stewardship research, and the ethical, historical and cultural challenges that come with it. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".