{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03391472868217054, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.707792207792208, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Constructing confidence: rational skepticism and systematic enquiry in local ecological knowledge research.

Key attributes of the social research contributions on indigenous ecological knowledge (IEK), local ecological knowledge (LEK), and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) are analyzed using the most frequently cited literature generated by the "ISI Web of Knowledge" and "Google Scholar" search engines. They are further exemplified by an examination of two contrasting approaches to the analysis of IEK/LEK/TEK. The results show that IEK/LEK/TEK is treated predominantly via definitions, and few articles examine concepts, research design, methods, or operational attributes. Consequently, there is no consensus on the content of IEK/LEK/TEK, the primary components of which await examination via focused research. These are fundamental issues, since IEK/LEK/TEK misrepresented by social research would probably deepen disempowerment of those it purports to champion. Research topics are suggested to address these issues.