Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses how the World Heritage Convention contradicts and coalesces with rights to culture and rights of Indigenous Peoples as asserted in international law. It describes the origin and universalistic aims of the Convention, and how the Convention’s state-centrism and Eurocentric heritage discourses have stymied the equitable participation of Indigenous Peoples in World Heritage conservation. However it also asserts that a broadening conceptualisation of World Heritage value alongside an increasing focus on synchronicity with human rights can enable recognition and protection of Indigenous Peoples’ worldviews, rights and cultural continuity under an international legal framework. Finally, the article examines the variance among states parties and the World Heritage Committee in upholding human rights standards, using case studies of five World Heritage sites: Budj Bim Cultural Landscape, Australia; Pimachiowin Aki and Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada; the Kenya Lake System in the Great Rift Valley, Kenya; and Kaeng Krachan Forest Complex in Thailand. The article concludes that despite the rights-based turn of recent years, the World Heritage system remains inconsistent in its adherence to international human rights standards.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".