Indigenous land stewards in British Columbia : ways of caring for the land
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This project aimed to explore the challenges Indigenous land stewards in British Columbia (BC) experience when exercising their rights to care for the land and what keeps them motivated and dedicated to their roles in the face of violence and discrimination. This project employed an Indigenous research paradigm for non-Indigenous researchers using a conversational interview method with 12 land stewards across BC, recruited using purposive sampling. The interview data was thematically analyzed to identify emergent themes surrounding care for the land. This project identified four major challenges Indigenous land stewards face in their work and six motivations that keep them dedicated to their roles. The main challenges participants discussed were 1) Colonialism; 2) Cultural Isolation; 3) Environmental Harm; and 4) Burnout and Emotional Hardship. The six key motivations for land stewards were 1) Maintaining Good Relations with the Land; 2) Learning, Sharing, Healing; 3) Spirituality and Ceremony; 4) Love and Care; 5) Indigenous Food Sovereignty; and 6) Resistance Against Colonial Structures. Participants expressed that while their motivations to care for the land are strong, the challenges they face must be addressed by colonial institutions in order to affirm Indigenous land rights, food sovereignty, and support the overall health of the land. This project served as a framework for future Canada-wide studies with Indigenous land stewards and aided in articulating a research protocol for further work exploring Indigenous conceptions of care for the land and how care supports the conservation of the environment and its food systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".