A Review of Traditional Environmental Knowledge: An Interdisciplinary Canadian Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past fifteen years there has been increasing interest in the nature and application of Traditional Environmental Knowledge (TEK) in Canada. This lias coincided with the settlement of land claims, the emergence of comanagement regimes, and the ascendancy of First Nation power and influence in formal decision making processes. Discourses on actual and potential applications of TEK in land and resource management are the focus of this paper. TEK is the outcome of complex interactions between a culture and the natural environment. Although there are different cosmologies and adaptations, common themes emerge in the way knowledge is acquired and communicated. There is also a great deal of value in its application. However, a number of issues remain to be resolved such as the compatibility between Western scientific knowledge and TEK, and the acquisition and application of TEK by "outsiders." As knowledge is taken from its immediate context it is "abstracted" to conform with the needs of the user and to the scale at which it is being applied. Two subsequent issues emerge. First, TEK is transformed as it is removed from its original context, and second, it may be co-opted in the name of resource and land management decisions that do not necessarily serve First Nations’ interests.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".