Culture Assimilation: Integration of Traditional Practices into Formal Heritage Laws as a Potential Way of Heritage Protection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attitudes toward the past can be recognised in many different ways. European worldview in physical protection of cultural heritage, reflecting in the formal heritage laws, has frequently carved out social elements of such heritage rooted in indigenous societies, for example, the belief of sacredness. This research, therefore, focuses on problems that probably arose during the introduction of Western legal systems to protect cultural heritage in non-Western societies: Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Canada and Australia. From the study on sociology and history of law, it shows that European-based law when first introduced to the regions has very often excluded customary law which obtained social respect. This created a gap between legal comprehension and people who are the subject to law. \nUp to present day these European influences of the legal system regarding to heritage management can still be discerned in international conventions. To bridge this gap, two suggestions are given in this research: one to work cooperatively between the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage and the 2003 UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Conventions; another to reinterpret in situ preservation in the 2001 UNESCO Underwater Cultural Heritage Convention as a way to treat the site with respect. The integration of traditional practices and heritage laws make it possible for indigenous and local people to gain more understanding of the heritage laws and thus to obey to these laws more easily. Hypothetically, the formal heritage laws become more effective.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".