Conceiving of Tradition: Dynamics of Judicial Interpretation and Explanation in Native Title Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of 'tradition' lies at the heart of judicial decision-making within the common and statutory law of native title in Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand. Notwithstanding its importance to native title processes, the concept, as interpreted and used by the courts in those jurisdictions, is relatively but significantly indeterminate in its reference. This makes it difficult to adequately evaluate the justifiability of judicial decisions made on the basis of that concept. This paper explores the meaning which authoritative courts in Australia have ascribed to the concept of 'tradition' within the statutory law of native title and the effect which that meaning has had there on judicial reasoning about traditionality. It goes on to examine the extent to which such reasoning has been - indeed, can be - rendered publicly accountable by the judiciary - given the vagueness of the concept. The main concern of the paper is not so much the use of vague concepts within the law or the exercise of judicial discretion in response to such concepts, as the failure of the judiciary to publicly and accurately represent the content of the reasoning which takes place within the 'zone' of discretion surrounding such concepts.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".