Escaping the "progress trap": UNESCO World Heritage Site nomination and land stewardship through intangible cultural heritage in Asatiwisipe First Nation, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The First Nation community of Poplar River in Northern Manitoba is using a UNESCO World Heritage Site nomination to assist with meeting local needs. Going beyond the expected, non-renewable resource development, Asatiwisipe First Nation is taking control over its own developmental plans, and forging an ecologically sustainable vision of community-controlled economic and political development. This initiative is an escape from the ‘progress trap’ where Indigenous resource stewardship practices will guide sustainable community economic development. This thesis explores the application of intangible cultural heritage as a lens for looking at the culture/nature discussion, food sovereignty, Indigenous resource management as well as Aboriginal and treaty rights. Based on longitudinal research over the past eight years, this dissertation is a collection of interviews and narratives from community members, personal experiences and policy research. Despite systemic Eurocentrism and many challenges, permanent protection of the Poplar River Community Conserved Area through the World Heritage Site nomination is perhaps the best solution for the community as it is an initiative that has been instigated by the First Nation itself.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".