Ka Mua, Ka Muri—Walking Backwards into the Future: Revitalizing Indigenous Economies and Economies of Well-Being
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
The concept of and desire for well-being economies are rising in prevalence as traditional business paradigms are questioned and alternative framings are being sought. Indigenous peoples, their economies, and their approach to business can provide a rich source of learning to enable and help facilitate a transition to economies of well-being. As Indigenous peoples are emerging from their colonial pasts, they are becoming more empowered to make investment choices, use business models, and form partnerships grounded in their worldviews, which are often well aligned with a well-being economy. In this paper, we note some of the obstacles Indigenous economies have faced and outline success stories where Indigenous tribes/communities/peoples have created business opportunities that are underpinned by their worldviews and are thriving commercially. We then describe a conceptual framework for how Indigenous peoples could support a broader transition to economies of well-being. Indigenous worldviews can provide a way for ‘reimagining’ the economy. Growing the self-determination of Indigenous peoples provides greater opportunities to create ‘reimagined business models’ that align with a reimagined economy and Indigenous worldviews, and thus helps demonstrate ways to start a transition toward economies of well-being. The findings, insights, and conclusions outlined in this paper were drawn from a convened workshop and subsequent dialogue of 24 Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States of America.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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