Centering Indigenous Cultural Resurgence to Improve Ecological Restoration: Learnings from the Revitalization of Cultural Keystone Places of the Quw’utsun Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many places of ancestral and cultural importance to the Quw’utsun (Cowichan) Nation, have long been recognized by settlers as important contributors to biodiversity as habitat for rare and/or at-risk species and ecosystems. This recognition has resulted in numerous settler-led ecological restoration efforts of cultural keystone places such as Garry oak (Quercus garryana) meadows, Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) forests, and Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) estuaries. While such efforts are well-intentioned, lack of understanding of pre-colonial baselines such as historical uses and stewardship practices and exclusion of cultural practices via the focus on fortress conservation have contributed to poor long-term restoration outcomes. Our research alongside Quw’utsun (Cowichan Tribes) and Spune’luxutth (Penelakut Tribe), is showing that centering cultural resurgence in restoration planning is a critical methodology that ensures projects respect the true history of lands, uphold community values, are culturally appropriate, protect Indigenous knowledges from misuse and misapplication, and ensure the reciprocal, human-land relationships required for long-term successful outcomes. Our learnings have broad implications for land restoration that suggest that finding ways to strengthen human relationships (Indigenous and non-Indigenous) to land, could provide the commitment and stewardship needed for lands to thrive into the future.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".