Culturally competent stewardship in non-Indigenous museums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lack of engagement by museums with Indigenous Nations for stewardship purposes, as reported in a 2020 Canadian Museum Association survey, prompts a case study of stewardship of Indigenous cultural material at a small non-Indigenous museum. Inadequate policies and practices for the Indigenous cultural material there are found to threaten the belongings with dissociation, hinder authentic representation, and perpetuate visitor ignorance. Stewardship reform is recommended. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada are prominent in the growing body of mainly Indigenous literature that offers insight into what constitutes culturally competent stewardship. Analysis of this literature has resulted in a set of principles for stewardship of Indigenous cultural material. Suggested stewardship reforms emphasize the acknowledgement of the authority of Indigenous Nations to govern their cultural material and the mandate for museums to collaborate with Indigenous Nations to co-manage Indigenous cultural materials in museum custody.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".