Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cartography, as an ever-evolving discipline, necessitates ongoing critical engagement with the question, "Who is the map for?"This inquiry is particularly pertinent in addressing the colonial narratives that have historically shaped mapping practices, especially in ways that relationships between First Nations peoples and the state -such as treaties, reserves/reservations, and land claim areas --are represented.The Coast Salish Peoples, the original Nations of the Salish Sea, maintain teachings, laws, governance systems, and land tenure practices that predate colonial settlement and continue to thrive today.In some parts of the Salish Sea bioregion (an area similar but not identical to the territories of Coast Salish peoples), historic and modern-day treaties have established foundational relationships between Indigenous communities and the settler states of Canada and the United States.Much of British Columbia, however, remains without treaties, reflecting the Crown's historical failure to establish formal agreements with many Indigenous communities, and the ongoing challenge of reaching modern-day treaty agreements today.In adjacent Washington State, historic treaties and tribal recognition policies have been quite different than in British Columbia, resulting in quite different cartographic picture.The transboundary nature of the Salish Sea further complicates conventional mapping practices, as political, legal, and geophysical boundaries often fail to align with how Indigenous peoples themselves see and practice their territorialities.The interconnected waterbodies of this bioregion provide a helpful focus, metaphor, and framework for better understanding and retracing treaty relationships, Indigenous territories, and ongoing negotiations over title and rights.This perspective is a cartographic challenge and highlights the need for maps that more accurately reflect the complex socio-political and ecological, and historical realities of the region.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".