Transformative frameworks and strategic planning for wildlife stewardship, co-management, and Indigenous-led conservation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildlife management and conservation is a complex and dynamic undertaking, extending beyond ecological considerations to encompass human— including social, economic, political, and cultural— dimensions. Within Canada, wildlife management and conservation are increasingly contested. Species declines and ecosystem degradation point to deficiencies in the status quo approach. Parallelling the ecological implications of species declines and ecosystem degradation is the threat to the food sovereignty, ways of life, and wellbeing of Indigenous Peoples. The necessity for improving wildlife management and conservation is well-recognized. Empowering the governance, stewardship, and knowledge systems of Indigenous Peoples offers a pathway to improve both ecological and social outcomes. Situated between species decline, ecosystem degradation, and Indigenous reconciliation and resurgence, this research highlights contemporary challenges and opportunities for wildlife management and conservation in Canada, with an emphasis on British Columbia. The objectives were to a) synthesize the state of Indigenous governance, stewardship, and knowledge within the Canadian wildlife management context, b) examine the process, strengths, and challenges for Indigenous-led conservation planning, and c) describe options for empowering Indigenous governance, stewardship, and knowledge through wildlife management. These objectives were achieved through the development of British Columbia-based case studies that evaluate the reconciliation-based conservation paradigm; systematic review of Canada-based co-management studies to study the role of Indigenous knowledge systems in wildlife management decision-making and practice; and participatory research that supported Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Government in the development of their wildlife management strategy. A foundational component of this research was the collaborative approach with Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Government, that included both applied and academic contributions. The applied contribution was the development of a wildlife management strategy for the direct use and utility of Xeni Gwet’in First Nation Government. The academic contribution was a case study documenting the Xeni Gwet’in wildlife management strategy planning process. This research offers frameworks, operational models and grounded case studies. The results present core requirements for reconciliation-based conservation to meaningfully occur, a model for mobilizing Indigenous Knowledge Systems throughout the wildlife management process, and a strategic planning approach and adaptive tools in support of Indigenous-led conservation. Together, the findings highlight opportunities for and barriers to change in contemporary wildlife management and conservation systems.
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 | 0.033 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".