MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402257000 · doi:10.1002/pan3.10707

Sharing Indigenous values, practices and priorities as guidance for transforming human–environment relationships

2024· article· en· W4402257000 on OpenAlex
Allyson K. Menzies, Ella Bowles, Deborah McGregor, Adam T. Ford, Jesse N. Popp

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePeople and Nature · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Education and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaYork UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLiber Ero Foundation
KeywordsIndigenousReciprocity (cultural anthropology)Environmental ethicsHumilitySociologyTraditional knowledgePublic relationsPolitical scienceEnvironmental resource managementSocial scienceEcologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it