Réappropriation du patrimoine autochtone : défis et nouvelles pratiques muséales et archivistiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le rapport de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation du Canada (2015) fait le point sur la colonisation et les politiques du gouvernement fédéral ayant porté atteinte à l’identité culturelle des peuples autochtones du pays. Que cela ait été intentionnel ou non, les institutions de la mémoire – musées, centres d’archives et bibliothèques – ont contribué à cet héritage colonial par l’imposition d’un régime d’historicité de conservation et d’interprétation occidental. Le mouvement pour la réappropriation du patrimoine culturel autochtone, mené tant par les groupes autochtones que par les institutions de la mémoire elles-mêmes, cherche à corriger cette situation par des mesures aussi variées que le rapatriement, la restitution, la gestion partagée et l’autogestion des collections autochtones ainsi que la création de partenariats et de projets collaboratifs. Cette étude analyse d’abord le contexte sociohistorique dans lequel évolue le mouvement pour la réappropriation du patrimoine culturel autochtone pour ensuite présenter les réformes et les pratiques exemplaires des institutions de la mémoire issues de ce mouvement. Ces réformes témoignent de deux tendances distinctes, soit des stratégies d’autonomisation ou de collaboration. L’étude conclut sur quelques recommandations quant aux mesures institutionnelles à privilégier pour les prochaines décennies. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Report (2015) takes stock of colonization and federal government policies that adversely affect the cultural identity of the country’s Indigenous People. Intentionally or not, memory institutions – museums, archives and libraries – have contributed this to the colonial heritage by imposing a regime of conservation historicity and Western interpretation. The movement to reclaim Indigenous People’s cultural heritage, led by both indigenous groups and memory institutions, seeks to correct this situation by various means including repatriation, restitution, shared management and self-management of indigenous collections as well as the creation of partnerships and collaborative projects. This study first analyzes the socio-historic context in which the movement to reclaim Indigenous People’s cultural heritage operates, and then presents memory institutions’ reforms and exemplary practices within this movement. These reforms speak to two distinct trends: strategies of empowerment and collaboration. The study concludes with a few recommendations regarding institutional measures to value in the coming decades.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".