Review of <i> Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA</i> By Kathleen S. Fine-Dare
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fine-Dare tells the story of the American Indian movement to recover human remains and cultural objects taken from them by non-Indians for the purposes of study, display, and profit from the viewpoint of an anthropologist supportive of Indian issues who wants her profession used in a more positive way regarding Native peoples. To her, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a means for understanding boarder historical currents invol ving the treatment of Indians, whether bad, good, or indifferent. She argues that relating this history is vital for fathoming the complexities of repatriation that began during the 1880s and continues to present times in both the United States and Canada. Fine-Dare also traces the development of federal and state laws related to Indian burial rights and repatriation. In discussing the impetuses behind non-Indian motives for the sacrilege, she examines the connection between the views of John Locke, Calvinists, Thomas Jefferson, Franz Boas, and others about the alleged superiority of Western society, along with their declarations proclaiming Native peoples' inferiority, and the rise of scientific enquiry and museums. Out of these intellectual processes grew a moral climate, supported by a power relationship and public sentiments, that sanctioned the practices of collecting, studying, and exhibiting Native remains and cultural items in museums through heinous means, including the decapitations of fallen warriors, grave looting, and theft.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".