Building relationships between First Nations Peoples and Western scientists to increase capacity to understand, respond and adapt to climate change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Warning: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be aware that this paper contains name(s) of deceased person(s). First Nations and their People have stressed to Western scientists that Country is in distress and traditional knowledge is key to mitigating the impacts of climate change. Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Knowledge Methods used to read land and seascapes are intrinsically linked to climate by First Nations peoples and embedded in cultural practice passed down and entrusted across generations. Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples identify that all risks that threaten the continuation of cultural practice and obligation to maintain, strengthen and protect cultural knowledge infringe peoples’ right to exist. Our most recent dialogue, the National First Peoples Gathering on Climate Change held in Cairns in 2021, investigated whether building connections with and among First Nations peoples and Western scientists had the potential to acknowledge and respect both knowledge systems for the benefit of all. Four key practices were applied to build a culturally safe space at the Gathering: (i) Indigenous governance; (ii) cultural protocols and co-design; (iii) deeply respectful partnerships for weaving knowledge; and (iv) Indigenous networks. Building connections among First Nations Peoples proved highly empowering. First Nations Peoples found the Gathering useful for synthesising and elevating a shared agenda woven across knowledge systems. Different perspectives shared on the impacts of climate change on people and Country built a mutual understanding, acknowledgement and respect, thereby building useability of both knowledge systems. Learnings from the Gathering are practical outcomes that First Peoples are sharing with communities. Several risks were also identified including: differing intergroup opinions about priorities, difficulty in understanding technical complexities, and in some instances, rejection of the worth of Western science. However, the Gathering allowed a space for creativity and recognition that climate justice is founded on respect and recognition for First Nations Peoples’ leadership and cultural authority.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".