MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070657550

Political Anthropology of TEK in the Canadian Subarctic

2009· article· en· W7070657550 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMilitary History and Strategy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsTheme (computing)CommonsSubarctic climateSection (typography)WrightResource (disambiguation)Natural resource
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"The present paper shall focus upon the political role which Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) has begun to play in recent disputes over land use between Aboriginal peoples and development planners. Focusing largely, though not exclusively, upon the Cree of the James Bay drainage area, its central theme shall be to describe and compare the worldviews, and the patterns of adaptation with which they are consistent of First Nations in the Canadian subarctic, and of public and private development planners. This comparison is meant to help us better understand recent debates within Canadian society at large over the role of TEK in development planning and environmental impact assessment, a discussion of which will provide the main theme in what follows. The paper will be divided into four sections. The first shall begin by defining TEK, and provide a brief discussion of the increasingly political role it has begun to play in the political relationships between First Nations and other levels of government. This shall be followed by a second section which briefly outlines traditional Cree land tenure and resource management practices in the James Bay area, and a discussion of the debate mentioned above, concerning the nature of Aboriginal management practices. The third section shall then discuss a recent debate over the role of TEK in environmental impact assessment ...:. Finally, I shall conclude with some observations on where each of the two positions might be expected to lead us, by highlighting their political and economic implications, and the approaches to the management of the commons which they suggest."

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.690

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0320.048
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University)Same topicMilitary History and StrategyFrench-language works237,207