Whose Rights? Whose Heritage?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many Indigenous peoples, exercise of fundamental rights over their heritage remains elusive. This is especially true in so-called settler states where Indigenous authority over heritage is systematically regulated. In Canada, the patchwork of provincial and territorial heritage policy and legislation institutionalizes heritage management as a continuing colonial enterprise. Countering this are efforts to effect change—from grassroots movements to legal actions, including the Supreme Court of Canada’s repeated affirmation of constitutionally protected rights for Indigenous peoples. This is reflected in land rights and title claims, in repatriation proceedings, and in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada’s Calls to Action. While Canada is positioned to foreground Indigenous values and preferences in future policy and practice, there remain considerable obstacles to accomplishing this. In this chapter, two political initiatives that seek to ensure the protection of Indigenous heritage rights are considered: 1) the repatriation of ceremonial objects in Alberta; and 2) the protection of burial grounds in British Columbia. This examination identifies important examples of policy change in Canada that reflect efforts to increase protection for heritage and heritage sites. However, these examples also emphasize the continued, tenacious state-control of these resources and their disposition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".