Bibliographic record
Abstract
From the 1970s onwards the juridical and political cultures of common law settler societies — Canada, New Zealand, and Australia — witnessed a wave of activity focused initially on claims to native land title and latterly on a broader array of indigenous rights placed under the umbrella of indigenous sovereignty.1 This activity was driven by the post-war decolonising agendas of international law, national land rights movements, revisionist academic work on colonialism, and constitutional and juridical reconsideration of the forms in which indigenous peoples had been dispossessed of their lands during the period of European imperialism and colonialism. In the Australian context a particular style of historiography provided significant impetus for the juridical construction of native title rights by aiming to overturn what was claimed to be the historical misunderstanding on which the earlier failure to recognise native title was based. Embodied most forcefully in the writings of Henry Reynolds, this historiography sought to expose the error involved in the legal category under which the British annexation of Australia was supposed to have taken place, terra nullius: variously, land uninhabited, belonging to no-one, or without a sovereign.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".