Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The Māori visual language documents Māori law. Māori law lives in whakairo Māori | Māori art. Māori have many sources of law and use aural forms such as whaikōrero | oration, pūrākau | stories, and mōteatea | traditional chants to communicate the Māori legal tradition. Māori legal communication also uses visual forms, separate from the written word. Those visual forms are primarily whakairo | carving, tā moko | tattooing and rāranga | weaving. This article argues that tikanga Māori law is visually documented and discusses the visual law in two of those forms, whakairo and tā moko. This argument is based on a two-stage research process. First, I reviewed the work of Indigenous jurists and their analyses of Indigenous law and its instruments. I then took an interdisciplinary approach using the theories of visual literacy, encoded objects, and visual jurisprudence to consider how Indigenous law is documented in a visual language. I offer both Māori and international examples of the visual language of Indigenous law. Those examples include tā moko | tattooing, tapae toto | blood gift, and pou whenua | land marker posts from the Māori legal tradition, the wampum belts from First Nations peoples of Canada and the art of the Yolgnu people of Arnham Land. This analysis is important because Indigenous law is often assumed to be primarily a performative or oral law rather than documented in a visual language. Frame and Meredith describe the risk associated with that assumption in their article ‘Performance and Māori Customary Legal Process’ (2005, 138). My argument expands on their analysis because having identified the risk of Indigenous law being classed as primitive because it is oral not written, they still focus on how Māori legal information is performed rather than visually documented. While Frame and Meredith argue strongly that performed law is no less authoritative than visually documented law, they do not demonstrate how tikanga Māori law is visually documented. This article attempts to do just that. Legal scholars from other similar jurisdictions have discussed how Indigenous people's legal traditions are recorded in a visual language (Anktar 2016; Cunneen 2017; Morphy 1999 ). Indigenous peoples describe how their visual documentation demonstrates the unique perspectives of what is valued by their culture; how its members understand the connections between the material, social and spiritual worlds; and therefore how their world view is structured and represented in their law. Any analysis that assumes an absence of visual documentation in te ao Māori risks simplifying the complexity of the Māori legal tradition and therefore its legitimacy and applicability in contemporary legal discourse. The Māori legal tradition is premised on the maintenance and enhancement of whanaungatanga, the fundamental legal principle behind tikanga Māori law. In communicating tikanga Māori law, the Māori legal tradition utilises performative and documented law, as do other Indigenous legal traditions and legal systems. When a person understands tikanga Māori, whakairo Māori and Māori law, it is possible to read that law in tā moko, tapae toto, pou whenua, and other objects. This same approach can be used to understand and read Indigenous law from other jurisdictions.
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 | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
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 ».