Incorporating Indigenous Methodologies for Assessing Conservation Risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Formally designating an area as an “ecosystem at risk” can have intentional and unintentional consequences for how that area is treated, including: • The area being formally listed under pieces of legislation • Affecting the ways in which Indigenous nations interact with species or ecosystems in an area • Feeding into decision-making processes like land use planning, environmental assessments, and mitigation • Informing conservation targets, funding, or opportunities for establishing various types of protected areas But what goes into considering an ecosystem at risk? NatureServe and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) have developed standard and respected methods for assessing the risk of ecosystems being lost. However, systems that are often used for describing and classifying ecosystems were not explicitly designed with consideration of Indigenous Knowledge. Furthermore, methods that are typically used for assessing threats to ecosystems often do not account for Indigenous cultural practices that maintain these ecosystems and their unique biodiversity over time. We will provide some examples of potential Indigenous cultural ecosystems, highlighting several that occur near the Salish Sea and elsewhere in British Columbia, Canada. Our work is at an early stage, but we will suggest that partnering with Indigenous knowledge-holders to review and improve established methods for describing, classifying, and assessing ecosystems could lead to better outcomes for conservation of biodiversity in general, and specifically ecosystems at risk.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".