MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3183699637

Родовые угодья без родовиков – отражение политики традиционного природопользования (на примере западных районов ХМАО-Югры) : DOI: 10.33876/2311-0546/2021-54-2/324-339

2021· article· ru· W3183699637 sur OpenAlex
Илья Викторович Абрамов

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueВестник антропологии (Herald of Anthropology) · 2021
Typearticle
Langueru
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIndigenousEthnic groupGeographyResidenceAlienationFoothillsQuarter (Canadian coin)SocioeconomicsPolitical scienceLawSociologyArchaeologyDemographyEcology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The special land law for indigenous peoples of Yugra was written in 1992 and became a counterweight to the development of the oil and gas industry and the growing alienation of natural land. As early as 1989, a third of the Okrug’s territory was reserved for indigenous land management. The «Regulation about the status of family lands in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug» defined ‘rodovye ugod’ya‘ (family lands) as a natural-territorial complex where indigenous people have historically led a traditional life. Family lands were regarded as the basis for traditional nature management, and a space for preserving the original culture. By 1999, 465 family lands had been allocated, taking up half of the Surgut and Nefteyugansk districts and a quarter of the Nizhnevartovsk district. These were the lands of the historical residence of the Hanty. In the west of Yugra, in the Kondinsky and Berezovsky districts (where the Mansi mostly lived), the family lands occupied 3.3 and 16.4% of the area. The article analyzes what caused the disproportions. On the example of the Kondinsky and Berezovsky districts, the economic and ethnic situation that determined the difference between the western and eastern parts is described. I mark the specific problems of allocating ancestral lands, the special decisions of the administrations, and the case of five family lands from the Bolchary village is separately analyzed. In 2001, the Regulation on Family Lands was absorbed by the Federal law on Territories of Traditional Nature Use. The article describes the difficulties that arose during the change of jurisdiction and discusses the disputed status of the owners (ex-rodoviki). The final legal status was obtained only after the functional zoning of the territories of traditional nature use (ex-family lands) in 2015. The result of the work was a set of special maps showing the exact boundaries, the size of forage and pasture zones, and the number of indigenous people permanently residing on the land. These data showed that in the western regions of the KhMAO-Yugra, the family lands did not fulfill their original task of creating reserves for original culture and traditional nature management. In 2014, less than 0.5% of the indigenous population lived permanently on family lands, and their contribution to the traditional economy was insignificant. The article uses specific examples to analyze the reasons why the concept of traditional nature management turned out to be inoperable. The differences between the concept of traditional nature management created by the state and the realities of the existence of ancestral lands are shown. For Citation: Abramov, I.V. 2021. ‘Territories of Traditional Nature Use’ without indigenous users – case of Western districts of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra. Herald of Anthropology (Vestnik Antropologii) 2: 324–339. Refereces Fedorova, E.G. 2010. Nacionalnye obshhiny srednej Sosvy i ix sozdateli [National community middle Sosva and their creators]. In Etnokulturnoe nasledie narodov Severa Rossii. Ed. by E.A. Pivneva, 203–210. Moscow: OOO «Avgust Borg». Kharamzin, T.G. 2001. Ekonomika traditsionnogo prirodopol'zovaniia korennykh narodov Severa [Traditional nature management of the native peoples of the North]. Khanty-Mansiisk. Kharamzin, T.G. and N.G. Khairullina. 2000. Obskie ugry: sotsial'no-ekonomicheskaia situatsiia na poroge tret'ego tysiacheletiia (Po materialam sotsiologicheskikh issledovanii) [Ob Ugrians: socio-economic situation on the threshold of the third Millennium (based on sociological research)]. Khanty-Mansiisk: Poligrafist. Khaknazarov, S.Kh. 2016. Problemy sotsial'no-ekonomicheskogo razvitiia territorii traditsionnogo prirodopol'zovaniia korennykh narodov KhMAO-Yugry (po materialam sotsioologicheskikh issledovanii) [Problems of socio-economic development of the territories of traditional land use of indigenous peoples of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug – Yugra (based on sociological research)]. Khanty-Mansiisk: Iugorskii format. Kuchinskii, M.G. 2007. Ritorika traditsionnosti i realii prirodopol'zovaniia [The rhetoric of tradition and the realities of nature]. Rasy i narody. Sovremennye etnicheskie i rasovye problemy. Vol. 33: 58–88. Kurikov, V.M. 2012. Perspektivy razvitiya tradicionnyh otraslej hozyajstvovaniya na territoriyah sel’skih poselenij Yugry [Prospects of development of traditional economic sectors in the territories of rural settlements of Yugra]. Vestnik ugrovedeniya, 4 (11): 147–154. Loginov V.G., Iu.V. Popkov and E.A. Tiugashev. 2009. Korennye malochislennye narody Severa, Sibiri i Dal'nego Vostoka: politiko-pravovoi status i sotsial'no-ekonomicheskoe polozhenie. Ekaterinburg: Institut ekonomiki UrO RAN. Novikova, N.I. 2008. Ed. Liudi Severa: prava na resursy i ekspertiza [People of the North: rights to resources and expertise]. Moscow: Izdatel'skii dom «Strategiia». Novikova, N.I. 2014. Oxotniki i neftyaniki: Issledovanie po yuridicheskoj antropologii [Hunters and oilmen: a study in legal anthropology]. Moscow: Nauka. Martynova E.P. Aborigennoe predprinimatel'stvo v Severnom Priob'e [Aboriginal entrepreneurship in the Northern Ob region]. Vestnik antropologii. 2019. 2 (46): 72–85. Martynova, E.P., Pivneva E.A. 2001. Tradicionnoe prirodopol`zovanie narodov Severnogo Priob`ya [Traditional nature management of the peoples of the Northern Ob region]. Moscow. Pakhomov, V.P., M.N. Ignat'eva, V.N. Beliaev, V.G. Loginov , A.A. Litvinova, A.I. Permiakov and A.I. Raishev. 2000. Metodicheskie materialy po vzaimootnosheniiam korennykh malochislennykh narodov Severa s khoziaistvuiushchim subektami [Methodological materials on the relationship of indigenous small-numbered peoples of the North with economic entities]. Ekaterinburg: Institut ekonomiki UrO RAN. Pika, A.I., and B.B. Prokhorov. 1994. (eds.) Neotraditsionalizm na Rossiiskom Severe (etnicheskoe vozrozhdenie malochislennykh narodov Severa i gosudarstvennaia regional'naia politika) [Neotraditionalism in the Russian North (ethnic revival of small-numbered peoples of the North and state regional policy)] Moscow: In-t narodnokhoziaistvennogo prognozirovaniia RAN. Pivneva, E.A. 2019. Skol'ko vesit rybii khvost?: etnichnost' i biurokratiia v traditsionnom rybolovstve na Obskom Severe [How much does a fish tail weigh?: ethnicity and bureaucracy in traditional fishing in the Ob North]. Herald of Anthropology (Vestnik antropologii) 2(46): 86–102. Territorii traditsionnogo prirodopol'zovaniia Khanty-Mansiiskogo avtonomnogo okruga – Iugry v period 1992-2004 gg. Informatsionnyi obzor [Territories of traditional environmental management of indigenous peoples of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug – Ugra in the period 1992-2004. Information review]. Yekaterinburg: OOO «Dom Akva-Press». Viget E., 2002. Ekonomika i traditsionnoe zemlepol'zovanie vostochnykh khantov [Economy and traditional land use of the Eastern Khanty]. In Ocherki istorii traditsionnogo zemlepol'zovaniia khantov (materialy k atlasu) [Essays on the history of traditional land use of the Khanty (materials for the Atlas)], 167–222. Yekaterinburg: Thesis.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Études des sciences et des technologies, Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,664
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0030,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0050,002
Bibliométrie0,0010,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,018
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0030,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0870,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,029
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,319 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle