Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Beothuk of Newfoundland and Labrador have been extinct since the early nineteenth century, but skeletal remains of twelve Beothuk individuals are in storage at Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland, and those of another ten are in the archives of the Canadian Museum of History in Gatineau, Quebec. However, the best‐known and most widely discussed Beothuk remains reside in the stores of the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh. These are the skulls of Nonosabasut and his wife Demasduit, both of whom came to untimely ends through contact with European colonizers. In recent years, efforts have been made to repatriate these skulls to Newfoundland and Labrador. However, Canada has no equivalent legislation to the US NAGPRA, which provides direction with regard to “unaffiliated remains.” Who then speaks for the Beothuk? This article explores some of the ethical and legal challenges associated with repatriating the remains of now‐extinct peoples, especially when those remains reside in a foreign territory. The ongoing ethical tension between the interests of science and those of justice are addressed, and a compromise solution is proposed. [bioarchaeology, bioethics, repatriation, justice, Beothuk]
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Science and technology studies Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | medium |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".