Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author looks back at her 15-year career practicing heritage management in southern Alberta. Weasel Moccasin highlights key complexities involved with being an Indigenous heritage management practitioner who is charged with managing her own cultural heritage. She critically analyzes different cultural understandings of heritage and how this affects the ways in which cultural material is managed. In Weasel Moccasin’s experience, the Euro-western notion of heritage is sterile and stagnant, while for Niitsitapii, it is dynamic and immersive—very much a living heritage. Euro-western heritage management focuses on “protection” and “exhibition” of heritage, preserving items from the past. In contrast, Indigenous heritage management involves “practice” and “use” of cultural items, preserving the action and knowledge. Weasel Moccasin’s chapter provides insight and advice to heritage management practitioners, especially to those who are Indigenous. Indigenous people and communities are encouraged to enforce heritage management practices that have their cultural values as the foundation, the core. She reminds us that Indigenous peoples are the experts of their own culture and way of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.040 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".