An intercultural approach to climate justice: A systematic review of Peruvian climate and food policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increasing global recognition of Indigenous knowledge and rights in climate governance, Indigenous Peoples’ initiatives are often constrained by state-centric structures. Their perspectives frequently clash with development strategies that prioritize economic growth and resource extraction, particularly in biodiversity hotspots where many Indigenous Peoples live. Despite the crucial role that nation-states play in addressing climate change, research on the incorporation of Indigenous Peoples in national climate policies is limited. This paper addresses this gap by analysing the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in Peruvian policies and the associated justice implications. We do so by developing and presenting an intercultural justice framework, through a textual and discursive analysis of 21 Peruvian policies related to food security and climate change. Our findings reveal that there is minimal inclusion of Indigenous Peoples in Peruvian national climate and food policy, highlighting their vulnerability, with limited integration of their knowledge and worldviews, thus perpetuating colonialism. However, Indigenous organisations are claiming important participatory spaces, beginning to influence Peruvian climate and food policies, albeit nominally.
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 | 0.013 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".