Navigating Indigenous heritage protection and local land use planning on the island of Xwe'etay, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many contexts around the world, colonial-settler heritage policies and local planning processes contribute to the ongoing loss of Indigenous archaeological heritage (IAH). Many intertwined factors contribute to this loss, including colonial systems that do not recognize the inherent rights of Indigenous people to manage their heritage on their own terms. Here, we explore the challenges that heritage policies and local planning systems present to robust IAH conservation. We focus on the island of Xwe’etay, in the Salish Sea of British Columbia and the governing bodies that control or have an interest in its heritage. Our interviews with local planners, First Nations, and others inform three central issues foundational to IAH planning: 1) jurisdiction and planning scope; 2) regulation and enforcement; and 3) capacity and resource limitations. We find that top-down, colonial regulations that guide heritage management practices are failing to adequately protect Indigenous archaeological heritage, while also instilling uncertainty and fear among settler landowners. Engaging First Nation and settler community members in IAH conservation, active relationship-building, knowledge mobilization, and enhanced local jurisdiction may present pathways to better protect IAH.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".