MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Expanding Purview of Cultural Properties and Their Politics

2009· article· en· W2133774763 on OpenAlexaff
Rosemary J. Coombe

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Law and Social Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsEnvironmental ethicsCultural heritageIntellectual propertySociologyModernityIndigenousCultural heritage managementIntangible cultural heritagePossessivePremiseLawPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cultural property is a field of law and politics that has expanded dramatically in the past two decades. The review explores the international legal, political, economic, and technological terrain in which possessive relations to cultural forms have been articulated and incited, as well as the revitalization of human rights claims premised upon cultural grounds. Changing practices, behaviors, attitudes, and protocols regarding cultural heritage both index and reflect transformations in social relationships that are indicative of larger patterns of late modernity and decolonization. This premise is illustrated through considerations of changing practices in cultural heritage preservation, archaeological and curatorial relationships to indigenous heritage properties, development institutions and programs, uses of intellectual property, and the treatment of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expression. A new body of negotiated proprieties is emerging in a space of unprecedented legal pluralism that constitutes a significant area for sociolegal inquiry.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0070.106
Scholarly communication0.0260.023
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.128
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.179 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Law and Social ScienceSame topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207