Threats to Heritage in Cultural Keystone Places: Fitting Western Concepts into Gitxsan Legal Orders and Laws
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resource extraction poses significant threats to cultural heritage sites and landscapes across British Columbia (BC, Canada), particularly in Gitxsan Territories, where people’s values are often overlooked in archaeological heritage management and consulting contexts. This research explores how Gitxsan legal orders and stewardship principles can contribute to conserving and restoring culturally and ecologically significant places—crucial work in the face of ongoing colonial policies and an increasingly changing climate. Cultural landscapes, characterized by the Lax’yip (Gitxsan Wilp/House Territories), provide a foundation for understanding long-standing stewardship practices and relationships that underscore cultural and environmental values and well-being. A key challenge, however, is how to effectively represent these landscapes to outsiders who may not share the same cultural connections to the land or understand Gitxsan heritage, histories, laws, and protocols. Reviewing these tensions in the context of resource extraction in one Territory, Lax Xsin Djihl, Wilp/House histories and stewardship practices are routinely ignored by archaeological consultants, leading to the destruction of cultural heritage. Evocative metaphors, such as cultural keystone places, may offer a way to convey the ecological and cultural realities of Territories for Gitxsan Houses, fostering a broader understanding and deeper regard for Gitxsan cultural heritage within archaeological regulatory frameworks.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".