Indigenous Lands and Constitutional Reform in Australia: A Canadian Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a sentiment currently growing in Australia that the Constitution requires updating to echo the actuality of Australia in the 21st century, it is timely to reflect on the constitutional recognition of the rights of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia's Constitution will provide the foundation for their future participation in the Australian nation. At present, no constitutional protection is afforded to the rights (including land rights) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Australian Constitution. The area of recognition and protection upon which I will focus in this paper is that in relation to Indigenous rights and title to land. Various forms of recognition and purported protection for Indigenous rights have been included in various nations' constitutions around the world. One constitutional model that has been judicially interpreted as affording recognition and protection of Aboriginal rights to land is that contained in Part 11 of the Canadian Constitution Act 1982. It is this model that I will examine, so as to determine the appropriateness of adopting a version of it in the Australian context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".