Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary begins with the author's background, which leads into explaining Indigenous Ways of Knowing, Knowledges, and Sciences. It examines the significance of Indigenous kinship perspectives offering a sustainable way to live, inherent in many Indigenous cultures. It then explores colonial epistemicide, evolving knowledge pluralism, and how to co-produce knowledge needed for evidence-based decision-making. It concludes with a discussion of the transformative role of Indigenous youth in demanding epistemic justice by serving as Indigenous Science Diplomats, promoting knowledge pluralism in evidence-based policy. These young leaders bridge ways of knowing and span power structures and cultural, epistemological, and disciplinary divides, fostering a more inclusive sustainability in the face of climate change. The commentary underscores the importance of empowering Indigenous youth as key actors in creating a sustainable future and advocates for greater recognition and integration of Indigenous Knowledges and Sciences in policy and practice, promoting a path toward epistemic justice and a sustainable planet.
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 | 0.020 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".