The Role of Indigenous Resurgence in Marine Conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples’ efforts toward environmental conservation are indivisible from their cultural identity and their social and political organizations. Indigenous resurgence, including the reinvigoration and reestablishment of Indigenous ways of living, are linked to the management, restoration, and conservation of marine and coastal ecosystems around the world. However, there remains a significant gap in the recognition and support of Indigenous governance systems in international policy discussions regarding conservation work. As a way to address this gap, we offer an analysis of marine Indigenous community-led conservation initiatives from around the world that were recipients of the UNDP Equator Prize, framed by initial research on Indigenous-led conservation in British Columbia, Canada. We highlight specific Indigenous governance strategies undertaken by such communities that foster both marine resource conservation and stewardship. The strategies we identified included practicing Indigenous traditional resource management, protection of traditional territories, Indigenous-led actions of environmental conservation, and data collection and monitoring. We also identified networking and collaboration with non-Indigenous supporters, as was reinvestment into education and capacity-building within the community. We conclude with concrete policy suggestions drawn from these cases that can help strengthen the leadership and self-determination of Indigenous peoples on local resource and environmental issues, and aid in much broader conservation efforts globally.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".