Canada’s Cultural Property Export Controls: An Analysis of the Colonial and Heritage Discourses that Animate the Cultural Property Export and Import Act
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis critiques Canada’s Cultural Property Export and Import Act (CPEIA) and its framing as a legal instrument intended to protect and preserve Canada’s cultural heritage. It focuses on the export provisions of the Act and the related experts and administrative bodies who oversee disputes under those provisions. I argue that colonial and capitalist heritage and property discourses are the foundation that underpins the CPEIA and as a result, the legislation both expressly and implicitly privileges colonial and capitalist ideas about heritage and property ownership. The legislation, on its face and through the limited examples of available application, leaves little room for alternative ideas about the meaning of “heritage” and its association with culture. Relying on Laurajane Smith and Fiona Macmillan’s work on the Authorized Heritage Discourse, I provide an updated historical account of the CPEIA and Canada’s perceptions of cultural property as a settler state in light of new opportunities to engage with the application of the legislation following recent decision from the Federal Court of Appeal and the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".