Crossing the Border: Indigenous Solidarity and Sovereignty within International Repatriations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationships between museums and the Indigenous Peoples of Turtle Island have changed monumentally over the last 20 years. Repatriation has gone from a contested topic to a reality of museum–Indigenous relationships. Despite the legitimization of repatriation, there still exist numerous obstacles for Indigenous people seeking the return of their sacred and cultural objects. One unique challenge is that of international repatriation. The international borders that we take for granted today arose out of settler politics and have no basis within Indigenous history. The United States (US)–Canada border inadvertently separated and split numerous Indigenous nations, significantly contributing to cultural fracturing and weakening. Museum collections of Indigenous material culture are nationally isolated, despite containing large collections from Indigenous groups outside their borders. This necessitates an original approach to repatriation that is not covered in national policy or legislation. International repatriation requires a high level of cooperation between Indigenous groups, giving nations split by the border a chance to reconnect and form a united front in order to achieve their objectives. Although the imposition of nation–state borders created many barriers for Indigenous Peoples, cross–border repatriation offers unique opportunities to assert Indigenous solidarity, sovereignty, and healing.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it