MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1497391720 · doi:10.53300/001c.6224

International and Comparative Indigenous Rights Via Video Conferencing

2009· article· en· W1497391720 on OpenAlex
Margaret A. Stephenson, Bradford W. Morse, Melissa Castan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLegal Education Review · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousAotearoaVideoconferencingGlobeIndigenous rightsSituatedPolitical scienceSociologyPedagogyLawEngineeringPsychologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incorporation of Indigenous content within the Bachelor of Laws curriculum is one measure that may contribute to the development of bicultural legal education in New Zealand. Incorporating Indigenous content into law courses can help to make the study of law more relevant to Indigenous communities and provide a critical framework from which changes to the legal system can be advanced. This paper identifies three distinct types of Indigenous content that may be usefully incorporated into the Bachelor of Laws curriculum: Indigenous legal issues; Indigenous perspectives; and Indigenous law. The inclusion of each type of Indigenous content has distinct benefits but also requires distinct forms of delivery. This paper considers these benefits and forms of delivery in relation to courses on Māori customary law and constitutional and administrative law, concluding that, in order to be effective, the incorporation of Indigenous content must be based on clearly identified objectives, with the type of content deliberately selected to meet those objectives, and delivered in a way which is suited to that content.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it