CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Archaeological Perspectives on the Nagpra: Underlying Principles, Legislative History, and Current Issues

Lovis, William A., Kintigh, Keith W., Steponaitis, Vincas P., Goldstein, Lynne G.·2004·Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources
DOI 10.5040/9798216435969.ch-009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5040/9798216435969.ch-009

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 1986, the SAA addressed how archaeologists should handle human remains in response to repatriation legislation debated by Congress and the growing movement among Tribes to reclaim control over ancestral remains.

    “In 1986, the SAA addressed the sensitive issue of how archaeologists should handle human remains in response to repatriation legislation that was being debated by Congress and the growing movement among Tribes to reclaim control over ancestral remains (Lovis et al. 2004;McKeown 2012;Riding In 2000;SAA 1986).”

    From Building a Foundation: A Retrospective on NAGPRA Collections Compliance 1990–1995 (2025) · cites this paper as Lovis et al. 2004

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lovis, W. A., Kintigh, K. W., Steponaitis, V. P., & Goldstein, L. G.
Venue
Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources
Publisher
AltaMira Press
Published
2004
Pages
165-184
DOI
10.5040/9798216435969.ch-009
Cited by
5
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