Human–nature relationships through the lens of reciprocity: Insights from Indigenous and local knowledge systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the context of climate change, biodiversity decline and social injustice, reciprocity emerges as a way of living and being in this world that holds transformative potential. Concepts of reciprocity vary and are enacted in specific cultural practices grounded in Indigenous and local knowledge systems. This editorial synthesises first‐hand evidence of how practising reciprocity can result in positive reciprocal contributions between people and nature. It also offers a theoretical justification of why considering reciprocity can lead to more equitable, inclusive and effective conservation and sustainability policy and practices, contributing to curving the colonial baggage of academic inquiry and development action. Nurturing reciprocal relations between people, especially between academics and Indigenous Peoples and local communities, is a necessary first step to identifying pathways whereby living in harmony with nature can be achieved.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it