The Indigenous Alternative: TEK, LEL, and Solutions for the Unsolvable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comment addresses the intentional exclusion of Indigenous nations from the United Nations and, consequently, from the UNFCCC and subsequent climate regime. It cautions of the adverse consequences that have resulted from such exclusion, both to the warming planet and to all its human residents. Critics say that the climate regime has fallen woefully short of reaching its goals. However, this comment suggests that including Indigenous nations in substantial international climate change conversations and decisions could result in yet-to-be-made progress toward reducing global warming. The permanent position status that the Inuit people hold on the Arctic Council, for example, helped empower them to envisage a unique solution to the impact climate change was having on their lives and take action in an international court to plant their idea in the international consciousness--that human rights and environmental rights are inextricably intertwined.\nThis comment posits that the clean development mechanism (“CDM”) is not inherently broken, but rather that carbon markets have been poorly deployed and can be reimagined to substantially address climate change. Including Indigenous experts with traditional ecological knowledge (“TEK”) on the expert committee mandated by the Paris Agreement and granting permanent position or voting status to Indigenous nations within the UN climate regime could bring alternate and lasting solutions in climate change. To illustrate how Indigenous philosophies might bear on reimagining carbon markets, the comment compares current carbon market implementation with how two different Indigenous philosophies might alter them such that they in fact operate to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".