Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I read the chapter "Concluding Thoughts and Fundamental Questions" by Michael Asch first, even though it is the last chapter in the collection, and, throughout, kept in mind the questions he posed: "What could be more reasonable than a desire to ensure that you are the custodian of your own cultural heritage?And what could be more unreasonable than holding another people's cultural heritage, of ongoing significance to them, in your hands?" 2Unfortunately, as many of the contributions to this fine collection demonstrate, action based on the simple measure of what would be reasonable in the circumstances has often proved elusive, whether in relation to the repatriation and trade of indigenous cultural heritage (part 1 of the collection), the protection of heritage sites and ancestral remains (part 2), or the recognition of intangible heritage (part 3).Even as dominant non-indigenous legalpolitical systems in countries such as Canada and Australia have moved, albeit slowly, often grudgingly, and incompletely, towards greater respect for, and accommodation of, the territorial property rights of indigenous communities, demands for genuine recognition for cultural property rights continue to meet with resistance.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".