MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926975457 · doi:10.25949/19430975

Seven generations healing: traditional ecological knowledge, recording, application, maintenance and revival

2020· dissertation· en· W6926975457 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMacquarie University · 2020
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBacillus and Francisella bacterial research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousTraditional knowledgeNatural resourceAllianceNatural resource managementConventionParticipant observationIndigenous rightsResource (disambiguation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thesis is the result of a collaborative participant action research project. It was directed by an alliance of indigenous people in Australia and North America working together to record, maintain and apply traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) in an attempt to address key indigenous aspirations identified within the framework of the United Nations Convention for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The primary aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of Traditional Knowledge Revival Pathways (TKRP) methodology against the delivery of identified community targets. The aims of the methodology included the protection and restoration of the natural environment through the revival and maintenance of indigenous cultures, beliefs, languages and traditions. The research involved six indigenous communities documented as six case studies, two in the United States of America, one in Canada and three in Australia. The communities used TKRP as a means to independently record and apply TEK with their own resources and direction. The 6 case studies established a foundation to evaluate the usefulness of the TKRP methodology as a culturally appropriate basis to record and apply TEK against a Monitoring Evaluation Reporting and Improvement (MERI) tool predominately based on Natural Resource Management (NRM). The TKRP projects were monitored for a period of 2 years from 2008 - 2010 to establish data for assessment. The duration of the use of TKRP methodology by the case study communities varied little except for the Kuku Thaypan TKRP community based in Cape York Australia which initiated the TKRP approach. This community acted as a 'control' to measure success within the 2 year period. The findings of the performance evaluation found that the TKRP methodology is a culturally appropriate methodology. Its method of recording, maintaining and protecting TEK enhances opportunities for the application of TEK in a number of diverse areas. It develops professional and cultural capacity and addresses social issues. The success of the methodology was influenced by a number of factors that included historical circumstances associated with colonisation and sovereignty, the duration of application, resources, and most significantly partnerships and levels of capacity. However, the methodology applied over the framework of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples meets the expectations and aspirations of the participating Indigenous communities. The weaknesses of program delivery related to the central requirement for high levels of community capacity to successfully initiate and drive projects as well as the reliance on pivotal facilitators who have the cultural and professional mandate to maintain and develop partnerships as a key mechanism for success. Other issues included the problems associated with the technical resources and expertise needed to deliver the program and maintain the integrity of TEK recording, the limitations of Intellectual Property (IP) protection, and the application of TEK without strong partners willing to support community initiatives. However, the TKRP approach measured against the aspirations outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples successfully develops cultural and professional leadership resulting in the development of inter-generational community capacity and in situ maintenance, revival and application of TEK with associated environmental management outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.019
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacquarie UniversitySame topicBacillus and Francisella bacterial researchFrench-language works237,207