The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Labeling knowledge
Abstract
Museums, archives and universities are key sites from which ideas about indigenous peoples and cultures emanate. A watershed moment came in 1990 with the enactment in the United States of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). This legislation introduced a process for museums and other federally funded institutions and agencies to return "human remains", "funerary items", "sacred objects" and "objects of cultural patrimony" to lineal descendants and "culturally affiliated" tribes. Local Contexts is an online platform developed to address the needs that Native, First Nations, Aboriginal and Indigenous peoples in largely settler-colonial contexts have expressed around intellectual property and the protection of their intangible digital cultural heritage in museums, archives and libraries. Initiatives like the Traditional Knowledge Labels move beyond protecting token instantiations, and strive instead to incorporate something of the originary cultural systems of knowledge in which these tokens are embedded, but not necessarily as a singular form of "property".
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
“TK licenses require that the Indigenous community is already a copyright holder, and with these tools, communities can better control how their information is used.”
From What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data (2020) · cites this paper as Anderson, McElgunn, and Richland (2017)
In the citing paper
“Anderson, McElgunn, and Richland (2017, 188) created TK labels as a way for Indigenous communities to add descriptive text on suggested use of specific works that are out of their reach (e.g., in public domain).”
From What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data (2020) · cites this paper as Anderson, McElgunn, and Richland (2017, 188)
In the citing paper
“TK licenses require that the Indigenous community is already a copyright holder, and with these tools, communities can better control how their information is used.”
From What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data (2020) · cites this paper as Anderson, McElgunn, and Richland (2017)
In the citing paper
“Anderson, McElgunn, and Richland (2017) developed Traditional Knowledge (TK) licenses that allow communities to better define the kinds of use that are culturally appropriate for their copyrighted works.”
From What We See, What We Don’t See: Data Governance, Archaeological Spatial Databases and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in an Age of Big Data (2020) · cites this paper as Anderson, McElgunn, and Richland (2017)
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Anderson, J. (2005). The Making of Indigenous Knowledge in Intellectual Property Law in Australia. International Journal of Cultural Property 12(3): 345–371.
Cited by
Gupta, N., Blair, S., & Nicholas, R. (2020) · Journal of Field Archaeology · doi:10.1080/00934690.2020.1713969 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Anderson, J., McElgunn, H., & Richland, J.
- Venue
- Engaging Native American Publics
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2017-07-14
- Pages
- 184-204
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
