Weaving ways of knowing in practice: a collaborative approach to prioritizing community knowledge and values in wildlife camera monitoring with Magnetawan First Nation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is not one singular way to weave together Indigenous and Western knowledges; creating meaningful cross-cultural collaborations requires a foundation of relationships rooted in the context of specific people and place. As interest in working across knowledge systems increases, our goal is to provide an example of respectful and appropriate cross-cultural collaboration within environmental practice. We demonstrate our collaborative, mixed-methods approach to developing a community-based wildlife monitoring program with Magnetawan First Nation that prioritizes community knowledge and values. Through community interviews and a youth sharing circle, participants highlighted values (respect, interconnection, reciprocity, collaboration, and relationship) as well as research priorities, providing examples of what each may look like in practice, to inform our monitoring approach. These examples, paired with reflections from the research team, are shared to explore the process of weaving together knowledge and values to co-create a community-based wildlife monitoring program, applying wildlife cameras as much more than simply a tool for data collection. This research provides tangible examples of weaving together knowledges and values in the context of environmental monitoring, helping guide future cross-cultural collaboration to ensure this work is being done in a good way.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".