Sharing Indigenous values, practices and priorities as guidance for transforming human–environment relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Achieving more effective and equitable environmental conservation practices and policies involves shifting from a human‐centric, top‐down perspective of environmental conservation to a perspective that respects and cares for all living and non‐living beings. Many Indigenous Peoples from around the globe embody approaches to environmental care that are rooted in values such as responsibility, respect and reciprocity (a.k.a. relational values), which, through meaningful engagement and support of Indigenous self‐determination, can guide Western society towards a fundamental shift in perspective, practices and relationships. We conducted interviews and sharing circles with 40 individuals from 12 Indigenous communities across Canada to describe: (1) the values, teachings and customs that are inherent to the way Indigenous Peoples relate to and care for the Land, (2) how these values and practices have changed over time and (3) ways to create environmental initiatives that are rooted in Indigenous values. Generally, participants emphasized the critical link between people and place, and how this leads to environmental practices rooted in values such as respect, reciprocity, humility and responsibility. They also reflected on the negative impacts of colonialism, environmental change and modernization on their connections to the Land and opportunities to practice these values, but highlighted that cultural revitalization efforts have started to restore traditional values and practices. To create environmental initiatives that are rooted in important values, research participants called for building better relationships both with nature and with each other through nature. Ultimately, uplifting Indigenous values systems and, specifically, the ways Indigenous Peoples relate to and care for the natural world stands to heal our relationship with the Land and safeguard it into the future. 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 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 | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".