Sovereign Objects: International Dimensions of Indigenous Repatriation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract “Sovereign Objects: International Dimensions of Indigenous Repatriation in Canada” explores the complexities of cultural repatriation in Canadian museums, advocating for its recognition as an international issue. By framing repatriation this way, the study acknowledges Indigenous sovereignty and aligns with international legal standards such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The international approach enhances political, social, and cultural outcomes for First Nations peoples, providing a robust legal framework and fostering greater recognition of Indigenous nations as sovereign entities. The manuscript highlights the importance of acknowledging the distinct cultural and political status of Indigenous communities, supported by historical treaties and contemporary legal recognition. It provides case studies, such as the repatriation of human remains from the Royal Ontario Museum to the Rainy River First Nations, to illustrate the practical application of these principles. The study also critically examines the challenges of adopting the discourse of “nations,” including the technical, political, social, and cultural expectations involved. By redefining repatriation as an international issue, this research promotes a deeper understanding of Indigenous sovereignty and facilitates more effective and culturally sensitive repatriation efforts. The manuscript argues that such an approach is essential for ensuring that repatriation processes are respectful, equitable, and aligned with the unique governance structures of Indigenous communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".