The Angel Mounds Repatriation and Reburial: A Miami Tribal Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In any NAGPRA effort, the perspectives of Tribal Nation and institutional representatives—even when mutually acknowledged and respected—differ. We are each informed by our own histories and guided by our own concerns. Tribal representatives may identify clear cultural echoes in the archaeological evidence of mortuary behavior and feel kinship to the corporal remains of the ancestors themselves. Even in the absence of those associations, Tribal representatives may see NAGPRA work as fulfilling their obligations as indigenous stewards and as active proponents for cultural sovereignty. Some institutional representatives may simply see NAGPRA collections as problematic items to divest the institution of as soon as possible. Some representatives, as well as scholars and museum staff and the like, may see in their institution's NAGPRA collections the hard evidence that has revealed the human past to science and the foundation of research and exhibits, evidence that will now be lost to such pursuits. In NAGPRA collections, as well as in the manner in which they and the information generated by them have been stored and studied, these same professionals also may see the material referents of the very history of American archaeology, anthropology, and museology. Yet, regardless of any divergence of Tribal and institutional perspectives, the Angel Mounds repatriation resulted not only in the return of the ancestors and their belongings to the earth. It is also an exceptional example of consensus building and collaborative NAGPRA work.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".