Indigenous interpretation in parks and protected areas on Turtle Island: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction The interpretation of national, provincial, territorial, and state parks and heritage sites is a powerful social force that can foster or thwart respectful relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. Methods By conducting a scoping review of relevant literature, this study aims to initiate conversations about how Indigenous interpretation is conceptualized and practiced in relation to national, provincial, territorial, and state parks and heritage sites on Turtle Island (i.e., North America). Results Findings indicate that while Indigenous interpretation is rarely explicitly defined, several themes are consistently used to illustrate what Indigenous interpretation entails or should entail. Themes include: (i) responsibility and respect, (ii) relationships, (iii) place-based cultural identity and empowerment, (iv) contested stories and histories, and (v) storytelling. Discussion While these thematic dimensions do not represent a definitive definition of Indigenous interpretation, they do suggest potential features that may enhance understandings and applications of Indigenous interpretation in parks, protected areas, and heritage sites on Turtle Island. They also reaffirm the importance of interpretive encounters as a social force encouraging relationships across cultures.
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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".