And Still, Ancestors Remain Out of Their Graves: Reflections on Past, Present, and Future Bioarchaeological Practices while Building an Indigenous Cultural Heritage Database in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article addresses past and present bioarchaeological practices and human remains management in Quebec; it focuses on the challenges of creating a bioarchaeological database during a two-phase project initiated in 2018–2019 by the Kahnawake Mohawk Council. Its goal was to help Indigenous communities engaged in repatriation and rematriation procedures. Key information regarding human remains’ current location from the 2018 database served as the basis for a second phase in 2021. Of a total of 345 archaeological sites, storage location could only be confirmed for 35% of 228 Indigenous sites compared to 70% of 77 Euro-Canadian sites. Because Ancestors are the legal property of the finder, the landowner, or both, this missing information poses additional challenges to those wishing to initiate repatriation and rematriation claims. Years of non-Indigenous legal and scientific control created layers of colonial assessments. Current populations must rely on archaeological finds to assess whether they are Ancestors’ “legitimate next-of-kin.” In the meantime, Ancestors remain stored. We show how these problems stem from Quebec's colonial archaeological practices and legal frameworks. We then draw on reciprocity-based archaeology to suggest new ways of taking care of Ancestors that respect Indigenous communities’ beliefs and that involve Indigenous communities in caring for their Ancestors.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".