Indigenous Evaluation Frameworks: Can the <i>Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage</i> be a guide for recognizing Indigenous scholarship within tenure and promotion standards?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage formally recognizes intangible cultural heritage. This article focuses on Indigenous intangible culture and reviews the 2003 Convention, including what is it, how it has come about, how intangible cultural heritage is defined in it, and the policies arising from it. In tandem with the 2003 Convention, museums have adopted a living culture approach toward Indigenous cultural heritage. Indigenous peoples have been pivotal in these policy shifts. The article then considers universities and asks whether the 2003 Convention, and its policies, can guide tenure and promotion policy for the appropriate evaluation of Indigenous scholarship. The rationale for this comparative is that Indigenous scholarship is embedded in intangible culture. Using 2003 Convention as a baseline, this article offers a potential policy framework for establishing said process.
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 | 0.325 | 0.279 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".