Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The attention given to indigenous rights has increased since the approval of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007. Although it is a soft law declaration and technically not binding, it serves as the cornerstone of much of the contemporary research on indigenous rights. Four states that initially voted in opposition to the UNDRIP—Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States—have now endorsed it. Despite the attention it garners, the UNDRIP is not the only international instrument that has been utilized to establish and protect indigenous rights and interests. The regional inter-American human rights system has also been key in the development and protection of indigenous rights. Another important facet of the UNDRIP is that it took twenty-two years of drafting effort before it was approved by the United Nations General Assembly. During those twenty-two years, many discussions, debates, and analyses were undertaken over the meaning of rights and principles included in the drafts of the declaration. Research and scholarship from the era before passage of the declaration is helpful in understanding the content of the document. But the approval of the declaration did not end the controversies over indigenous rights. Debate and examination of the evolving body of indigenous rights continues during the period after passage of the declaration. As well, indigenous rights are not simply “human rights”; rather, they are a complex set of rights that can impact a broad swath of other legal doctrines. Intersections of indigenous rights with laws regarding economic development, the environment, and land claims can give rise to new interpretations and understandings of the impact of indigenous rights. While the four “no states” might be what most readily comes to mind when thinking about where many indigenous peoples live, indigenous peoples are, in fact, scattered throughout the world, including Europe. Research on indigenous rights is not carried out only from a legal perspective. Indigenous rights cover many different kinds of rights. Some have an emphasis in international law doctrines, such as the right to self-determination and issues about indigenous and tribal sovereignty. Other rights emphasize the importance of culture and heritage, and it can be useful to consider research in other disciplines, including history, political science, and anthropology. This article includes research and resources in related disciplines as well as legal research and law-based resources. (A note about language: American references to indigenous peoples are inclusive of the words “American Indian” or “Indian.” “Indian” is a legal term of art used in federal and state statutes. Indigenous peoples in the United States refer to themselves as “Indians” rather than Native Americans. For these reasons, where appropriate, the article makes use of the terms American Indian and Indian in preference to Native American. This usage may be confusing to non-American readers and so a clarification is offered).
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,108 | 0,033 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».