The Vulnerability of Archaeological Logic in Aboriginal Rights and Title Cases in Canada: Theoretical and Empirical Implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The history of archaeological evidence in Aboriginal rights and title cases in Canada illustrates an alignment between archaeological arguments regarding Indigenous history and recent court rulings. Although there are associations between cases that rule in favor of Indigenous rights and contemporary archaeological thinking and between rulings against Indigenous rights and older forms of archaeological reasoning, we argue that there is a more fundamental similarity. Both Canadian courts and archaeology seem to concur on assumptions of four core legal and historical principles: how were Indigenous societies organized, what was essential to Indigenous culture, what constitutes continuity, and what is the evidence for Indigenous rights. We argue that this convergence has less to do with evidence and instead derives from a shared cultural history, thus creating an ethnocentric bias. If archaeology is to assert its capacity to reveal history within rights and title cases, it must address three issues that emerge from this legal legacy: (1) lingering intellectual naïveté regarding interpretive links between material records and cultural identity, (2) associations between archaeological theoretical explanations for Indigenous history and western cultural practices, and (3) a fundamental ethnocentrism in archaeological understanding of humanity that reflects contemporary asymmetries of power. Contemporary archaeologists often valorize collaborative practices with Indigenous communities and subscribe to an ethic of equality and respect. However, its history in legal contexts in Canada suggests that archaeology is not able to achieve this ambition. This inability is particularly problematic given the increasing influence that archaeological experts appear to have in Canadian legal debates over Aboriginal rights and title.
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 | 0.014 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".