Indigenous cultural heritage policies as a pathway for Indigenous sovereignty and the role of local governments: an example with K'ómoks First Nation, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous cultural heritage (ICH) is threatened worldwide, driven by factors like development, private property rights, and colonial planning. Indigenous communities are increasingly navigating the inadequacies of ICH protection by exerting their rights through laws, protocols, and policies. These initiatives assert sovereignty and relational responsibility to ancestral cultural heritage outside of the mandated colonial systems of management. This study centers on the Comox Valley in British Columbia, where the ICH of K'ómoks First Nation is under increasing threat of erasure due to private and commercial development. In response, the K'omoks First Nation has developed their own Cultural Heritage Policy (CHP), and accompanying archaeological permits to protect their cultural heritage where provincial archaeological legislation fails to. In the context of the K'omoks First Nation, we explore three interconnected questions associated with the assertion of Indigenous Peoples' rights and responsibilities around protecting their ICH: how do Indigenous communities exert self-determination over their ICH, how does ICH interact with local planning processes, and how can local (settler) governments strengthen ICH protection at the local level? Our findings reveal that local level implementation of Indigenous cultural heritage policies help to ensure that ICH protection strategies are effective and meet the needs of Indigenous Indigenous communities. Challenges remain, however, regarding jurisdictional barriers to formal policy adoption within the colonial regulatory regime, capacity limitations, and the need for public education and communications regarding Indigenous-led heritage policies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".