A scoping review of the sustainable development goals and indigenous peoples: direction for a post-2030 agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present the results of a scoping literature review that was conducted to assess the ways in which the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are (mis)aligned with the needs, values, and rights of Indigenous peoples. Despite purported commitments to engage Indigenous peoples, those efforts proved ineffectual, resulting in the erasure of Indigenous cultures and dereliction of Indigenous rights. Yet the literature shows that Indigenous communities and organizations are mobilizing self-determined movements, empowered by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, that challenge the universality of the SDG framework. This includes developing their own goals and indicators to inform development priorities and to mitigate the detrimental governance effects of global goal setting. In developing these goals and indicators themselves, Indigenous peoples are challenging the normalizations of the SDGs by offering their own conceptions of sustainability and the cultural virtues that can inform self-determined forms of development.
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 | 0.046 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".