The Impact of the American Doctrine of Discovery on Native Land Rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Johnson v. McIntosh, John Marshall proclaimed that European discovery of America “gave exclusive title to those who made it . . . .” 21 U.S. 543, 574 (1823). Marshall presented a revised version of the discovery doctrine in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), yet it is Johnson that remains the leading decision on native property rights in the United States. The Johnson discovery rule has not only diminished native rights in the United States, but has also influenced the definition of indigenous land rights in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.\nThis Article sheds light on how the American doctrine of discovery has influenced the rights of the Australian Aborigines, the Mâori of New Zealand, and the First Nations of Canada. The Article also discusses the significance of the United Nation’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which affirms indigenous peoples’ rights to land and resources. Although Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States voted against the 2007 Declaration, each country has reconsidered its position.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".