Native American and First Nation Perspectives on the Use of Human Remains in Education & Proximity to Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural attitudes regarding interactions with the deceased, the dead and contact with the lifeless human body vary throughout the world, including among Native American, First Nation, Metίs, and Inuit groups in North America. From remains that have been obtained without consent to working with cadaveric specimens, this talk addresses the beliefs and concerns of indigenous peoples regarding the use of human remains as educational specimens and interaction with the dead. Both speaker perspectives as well as preliminary results from research will address the diverse attitudes towards the dead, treatment of the dead, use of human remains for teaching and research purposes. We will also acknowledge the principle of informed consent in a colonial world. Anatomical education is often reliant on the gracious donation of humans but what are we to do if they were not obtained with consent as are many of the indigenous specimens still maintained at universities? Working with human remains can also be of concern for indigenous students with respect to their cultural beliefs. This talk will address the importance and considerations needed for indigenous students while providing the audience with a basic understanding of some of those cultural beliefs. It is not only important to have respect for the human remains but also for the students who encounter them. Anatomical educators must have an awareness of cultural and religious beliefs that are at odds with working with human remains or being in the presence of a lifeless body, so that we are prepared to provide inclusive learning environments for our students. We hope to provide an inclusive discussion on Native American and First Nation perspectives on the use of human remains in education and the proximity to death.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.021 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".