Out of time: First Nations, archaeology and the excavation of human remains at QiL-XE'ma:t (Craig Bay)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The events that took place during 1994 and 1995 at Craig Bay, BC, represent a pivotal event in British Columbia archaeology. This thesis is an attempt to place the conflict at Craig Bay within the context of the wider argument regarding who should ultimately have jurisdiction over aboriginal human remains that are excavated from cultural heritage sites and stored in holding institutions throughout the world. I argue that each party involved in the dispute over human remains works within the context of essential cultural values concerning ancestry, respect and ownership. It is the clash of these values that is at the heart of the conflict over human remains. Furthermore, the conflict is exacerbated by an inherent power imbalance that exists between the Western scientist and First_Nation. In conclusion, I argue that, if the two opposing sides in the debate are ever able to reach a compromise, it will be through a recognition and mutual understanding of each other's contingent values . It is not enough to simply tolerate values that oppose your own. In order to avoid conflict, one party must be willing to identify their values, and (though they may find it impossible to adopt or accept them) acknowledge and validate, within the context of the discussion, the opposing party's values.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".