The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The overall sentiment among Tribal communities-for which NAGPRA represented the opportunity to rectify theft and desecration, reclaim culture, and in doing so reaffirm their sovereign identity-was one of perseverance and frustration, of success tempered by roadblocks and dismay (Chari and Lavallee 2013).”
From A Granular Analysis of Public Comments to the 2022 Proposed NAGPRA Revisions (2025) · cites this paper as Chari and Lavallee 2013
In the citing paper
“Yet, despite these clarifications, implementation has been mixed-at times incredibly successful but often a fraught, uphill battle (Chari and Lavallee 2013).”
From A Granular Analysis of Public Comments to the 2022 Proposed NAGPRA Revisions (2025) · cites this paper as Chari and Lavallee 2013
In the citing paper
“Fundamental challenges to the work of NAGPRA implementation have always been the stark complexity of the process, the diverse array of stakeholders implicated by its mandate, and the oftenconflicting goals and priorities of those stakeholders.”
From A Granular Analysis of Public Comments to the 2022 Proposed NAGPRA Revisions (2025) · cites this paper as Chari and Lavallee 2013
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
NAGPRA at 30: The Effects of Repatriation
Nash, S. E., & Colwell, C. (2020) · Annual Review of Anthropology · doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-010220-075435 · Cited by 92
A Granular Analysis of Public Comments to the 2022 Proposed NAGPRA Revisions
Guthrie, E. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.12 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Publisher
- Oregon State University Press
- Published
- 2013
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
