Repatriation, Indigenous Peoples, and Development Lessons from Africa, North America, and Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repatriation issues-those involving the return of human remains and cultural property of various societies-are a major concern of indigenous peoples world-wide. / Efforts have been made by indigenous peoples in places as far afield as Australia. Tasmania. southern Africa. Canada. the United States. Latin America. and the Pacific to get museums and universities to return biological and cultural materials that they believe belong to them.2 On September 1st, 1998, the Chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) signed an agreement with a number of American Indian tribes that allowed for the repatriation of all Indian remains in the possession of the University. This was a landmark decision in several ways. First, the agreement allowed for the return of both affiliated and unaffiliated remains (those remains not linked to a specific tribe). Second, the agreement provides for the return of human remains to a consortium of tribes (all of those tribes who are signatories to the September 1st agreement). Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, museums, universities, and other institutions in the United States are required to report on the presence of Native American human remains and associated cultural materials to the tribes with
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".