MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008410008

Book Review: <i>Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws,Policy, and Reform</i> Edited by Catherine Bell and RobertK. Paterson

2010· article· en· W7008410008 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepatriationIndigenousHuman rightsCultural heritageCultural heritage managementPremiseInternational lawIntellectual property
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editors Catherine Bell and Robert Paterson, along with fifteen contributors, have produced a leading-edge work on the complex topic of First Nations cultural heritage and the law in Canada. A companion volume to First Nations Cultural Heritage and Law: Case Studies, Voices, and Perspectives (2008), it is part of the “Law and Society Series” that promotes interdisciplinary approaches to the study of law and society. Underlying both volumes is the premise that material and intangible cultural heritage are inseparable and fundamental to Indigenous human rights and the continuity and revival of the collective identities of First Nations. At the heart of the discussions in this book are the challenges faced by First Nations to protect, repatriate, and control their cultural heritage in accordance with their Indigenous laws and protocols within Canada’s present legal regime. The Canadian experience is examined within the contexts of Canadian, U.S., international, and “customary” law. Because Canadian law and policy with respect to repatriation, trade in material culture, and the disposition of human remains and burial goods have been greatly influenced by U.S. law reform, the American experience is referred to throughout. Of particular interest to museum professionals are Catherine Bell’s examination of domestic repatriation and Canadian law reform and James Nafzinger’s critical review of the implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in the United States.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.019

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicCultural Heritage Management and PreservationFrench-language works237,207