MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7106014649 · doi:10.7939/83288

Indigenous Women and 2SLGBTQIA+ Perspectives on Chronic Wasting Disease Research and Governance: #cwdbeadsproject and Indigenous STS Interventions

2025· dissertation· en· W7106014649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Library · 2025
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPrion Diseases and Protein Misfolding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousChronic wasting diseasePsychological interventionDiseaseQualitative researchTraditional knowledgeFidelity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Awareness of chronic wasting disease (CWD)--a fatal neurodegenerative disease primarily affecting cervids (deer, moose, elk, and caribou)--and communication of important information regarding spread, transmission, and risk associated with the disease are the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments. Provincial messaging available to the public regarding CWD focuses on recreational hunter populations in Alberta, whereas Indigenous harvesters remain increasingly uninformed. The purpose of this research was to explore the perspectives of Indigenous beaders--a group that interacts with cervids as part of the resurgent practice of harvest, hide tanning, and beadwork, but that remains consistently not consulted on matters of wildlife management and health. The objectives of this research were to provide current and concise information on CWD to the beadwork community, to engage Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQIA+ people on CWD, and to include the perspectives of Indigenous beaders (Indigenous women and 2SLGBTQIA+ people) and their other-than-human counterparts into research on CWD management. The following three research questions guided the investigation of this project: 1) What concerns do Indigenous beaders offer regarding CWD? 2) How does Indigenous beadwork function as a co-constitutive process between human and other-than-human relations? And 3) How do Indigenous beaders imagine Indigenous communities being involved in research and management of CWD? To answer these questions, this research used a qualitative approach that takes direction from critical Indigenous methodologies and arts-based research creation. Data was gathered using beadwork elicitation via the #cwdbeadsproject, and conversational interviews. In total, 17 Indigenous beaders participated in this research, and a total of 21 combined interviews and submissions collected. This research finds that Indigenous beaders are engaging in harvest related practices in ways that are not visible to provincial governments currently managing CWD. Subsequently, the lack of engagement with beaders results in knowledge gaps where beaders are less aware of and do not have access to information or safe handling or processing protocols that can greatly assist them in reducing the possibility of disease transmission and spread. Further, this research sought to better understand the co-constitutive relationships between Indigenous beaders and their other-than-human counterparts. In this regard, beaders communicated a level of respect akin to care that is in alignment with a respect for animals and their sacrifice in the hunt. This care was expressed through the idea of using the animal's body to its fullest capacity. The final results chapter presents Indigenous beaders perspectives on Indigenous-led initiatives and community involvement in CWD, insight into the creative potential of Indigenous science, and a series of future research objectives for critical Indigenous scholars looking to engage in Indigenous scientific projects regarding wildlife disease. In summary, this research provides theoretical contributions to the emerging field of Indigenous Science, Technology, and Society (STS) by incorporating critical perspectives on the technologization of wildlife disease management and the exclusion of Indigenous expertise on wildlife health. Further, this research contributes to Indigenous methodological approaches through the development of Indigenous multispecies autoethnography and arts-based research creation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.992
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Alberta LibrarySame topicPrion Diseases and Protein MisfoldingFrench-language works237,207