MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785109380 · doi:10.1163/9789004342194

Indigenous Peoples' Cultural Heritage

2017· book· en· W2785109380 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundLapin YliopistoInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsIndigenousScholarshipSubject (documents)Cultural heritagePolitical scienceTraditional knowledgeHuman rightsIdentity (music)Environmental ethicsSociologyLawLibrary scienceAesthetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fragmentation of International Law Relevant to Indigenous Cultural HeritageFragmentation specifijically within international law also afffects indigenous rights to their cultural heritage.Fragmentation in international law has been defijined as 'the profound systemic rupture in the structure of international law, reflected in the lack of well-developed and established hierarchies or other techniques to deal with normative conflicts and tensions between general international law norms and its specialized regimes, as well as between those regimes inter se.'28It has been widely argued that the expansion of international law 'has created problems of harmony between its diffferent branches, institutions and norm-systems' .29Such developments have led to a lack of coherence of the various regulatory contexts in international law, which prevent the formation and application of shared principles and interpretations across international law.30This compartmentalization and specialization is very obvious in the study of indigenous cultural heritage with detrimental efffects to a coherent development of the law. International Human Rights LawThere are three main international law systems related to indigenous cultural heritage.The most recent one is the international human rights law system.The level of protection evolved quite considerably in the last few years.Paramount in this system is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a tool that clarifijies how general human rights standards apply on indigenous cultural heritage.Article 31 UNDRIP explicitly recognises the right of indigenous peoples to 'maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures.'The article specifijically includes the following in the manifestations of cultural heritage, knowledge and expressions to be protected: 'human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, lit-28 A.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207