MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399060761 · doi:10.29173/mlj762

Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform

2009· article· en· W4399060761 on OpenAlex
Luke McNamara

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueManitoba Law Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousCultural propertyCultural heritageRepatriationIntellectual propertyLawProperty (philosophy)Environmental ethicsPolitical scienceCultural heritage managementProperty rightsLaw and economicsSociologyEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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?" 2 Unfortunately, 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.At first glance, it might be assumed that cultural claims would be less affronting to non-indigenous interests than territorial claims or claims to resources; however, in chapter 12, "Looking beyond the Law: Questions about Indigenous Peoples' Tangible and Intangible Property", Val Napoleon offers a contrary hypothesis.Having observed that attempts to explain the failure to protect indigenous cultural heritage have often focused on the limitations of formal intellectual property law regimes for the protection of indigenous intellectual property and cultural heritage, Napoleon continues:But look a little more closely.Just beneath the surface, another dynamic becomes discernable.It has to do with the consequences of locating indigenous peoples' tangible and intangible property under the umbrella of 'cultural'.It is by this process that indigenous peoples' property becomes disembodied from its political, social, economic, and legal moorings within their societies.Arguably, it is precisely this displacement of property from that which gives it meaning and coherence that hinders efforts to protect it.Does adding the label 'cultural' to property facilitate its commodification and cause its vulnerability? 3

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it