MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Heritage Ethics and Human Rights of the Dead

2018· preprint· en· W3124878222 on OpenAlexaff
Kelsey Perreault

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMemory, Trauma, and Commemoration
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismScholarshipHumanityHuman rightsEnvironmental ethicsSociologyLawDark tourismHonourAestheticsPolitical scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In The Work of the Dead: A Cultural History of Mortal Remains, Thomas Laqueur argues that the work of the dead is carried out through the living and through those who remember, honour, and mourn the dead. Further, he maintains that the brutal or careless disposal of the corpse “is an attack of extreme violence”. To treat the dead body as if it does not matter or as if it were ordinary organic matter would be to deny its humanity. From Laqueur’s point of view it is inferred that the dead are believed to have rights and dignities that are upheld through rituals, practices, and beliefs of the living. Drawing on dark tourism scholarship and cultural memory theory, this paper examines the display of human bones at Sedlec Ossuary, Czech Republic and the tourist culture that has built up around the site. Primarily, my writing calls into question the commoditization of burial places as a conceivable violation of the human rights of the dead. My research is driven by a number of questions: What is it that draws tourists to burial grounds and how do heritage sites negotiate visitor experiences? What are the ethical boundaries when a final resting place with bodies on display is also marketed as a tourist site? Do the dead have human rights and how are the living responsible for preserving those rights?

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.098
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicMemory, Trauma, and CommemorationFrench-language works237,207