Australia, Indigenous peoples and World Heritage from Kakadu to Cape York: State Party behaviour under the World Heritage Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent heritage literature abounds with criticism of UNESCO and the system set up under its World Heritage Convention. Much of this criticism would be better directed at the States Parties to the Convention, most of which operate in ways that serve their own national interest. Some, however, give mixed signals and demonstrate behaviour that seems inconsistent to the outside observer. Australia is an example of such a State Party, having been a leader in two seemingly opposed policy shifts within the World Heritage system during the last 15 years. On one hand, since the late 1990s Kakadu crisis it has sought to re-focus the World Heritage system on the conservation of Outstanding Universal Value to the detriment of important societal issues which the system could address more concertedly, such as the achievement of cultural dialogue and the entrenchment of human rights. On the other hand, Australia has been a principal advocate for greater involvement of Indigenous peoples in World Heritage nomination and management. The extent to which Australian governments have learnt to deal more sensitively with their Indigenous citizens is shown in the current development of the World Heritage nomination of Cape York. Australia’s apparently inconsistent behaviour within the World Heritage system reflects tensions within Australia’s internal governance arrangements and also at the interface between global governance and state governance. Clearer recognition of such tensions is necessary if a better understanding of the operations of the World Heritage system is to be achieved and if ways to improve the World Heritage system are to be found.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".