Bibliographic record
Abstract
Archaeologists are increasingly aware that their discipline affects living people, including the descendant communities on whose lands we work and heritage we explore. This trend has created a rise in engaged archaeological practices, including community-based, collaborative, and indigenous archaeologies. This thesis addresses the topic of community engagement by assessing how, to what extent, and to what ends archaeologists and descendant communities are working together in British Columbia. To examine these questions I first describe literature and theory on community engagement within and outside of archaeology, including past attempts to measure or evaluate community engagement. I use this to frame a set of attributes that characterize effective elements of community engagement. I then use these attributes to assess individual British Columbia archaeology projects, through interviews with British Columbia archaeologists and a sample of the British Columbia archaeology reports. My results indicate that British Columbia archaeologists recognize the importance of community engagement and attempt to implement strategies of engagement in their projects. Moreover, my results indicate that meaningful community engagement includes the opportunity for partnership, involvement, and long-lasting relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".