Land, Language, and Leadership: Two-Eyed Seeing in British Columbia’s Natural Resource Management
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
Indigenous law and governance systems across British Columbia have experienced tremendous hardship and transformation since first contact. Colonial systems have stifled Indigenous cultural governance structures, compromising Indigenous communities’ centuries-old methods of sustainable land and resource management through stewardship. Despite the acknowledged importance of Indigenous stewardship in natural resource management initiatives, land-based decision making within British Columbia continues to design and implement processes and mechanisms that stifle Indigenous law and governance and misrepresent Indigenous values. This article uses document analysis of 123 forestry-centric government-to-government Forest Consultation and Revenue Sharing Agreements within British Columbia to explore how Two-Eyed Seeing manifests through the opportunity to uphold Indigenous law and governance in these agreements. Focusing on the use of Indigenous language, cultural values, and hereditary leadership, nine of the agreements studied showed signs of Indigenous law and governance in their terms. These findings highlight the need for a path forward that is inclusive and empowers Indigenous law and governance in natural resource decision making to ensure enhanced stewardship opportunities for future generations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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