MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406781885 · doi:10.1177/11771801241312429

An Indigenous learning approach to managing solid waste in First Nations in Canada

2025· article· en· W4406781885 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anderson Assuah

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity College of the North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSolid waste managementMunicipal solid wasteGeographyEnvironmental planningWaste managementEngineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature on municipal solid waste management on First Nations emphasizes the need to improve existing systems and attitudes and behaviours. Learning about programmes and systems can bring about these changes. This research examined how two First Nations in Canada learned about municipal solid waste management in an Indigenous context and the consequent impacts of their learning. The data show that participants mostly learned from close family relations and conversations with community members, while learning directly from Elders, ceremonies, and storytelling was limited. Intergenerational learning occurred, where the younger generation learned from the older generation and vice-versa. The impacts of learning included reducing municipal solid waste generation, avoiding packaging, and reusing items. This research concludes that Indigenous learning should be incorporated into municipal solid waste programmes because it is culturally relevant and helps create awareness. In addition, Elders should be deliberately involved in planning programmes, and municipal solid waste issues should be incorporated into ceremonies about land protection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.449

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous PeoplesSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207