Conséquences juridiques et sociales des revendications foncières autochtones : regards sur le droit interaméricain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lorsqu’ils reconnaissent des droits fonciers ancestraux, les organes décisionnels de l’Organisation des États américains promeuvent le rapport à la terre qu’entretiennent les peuples autochtones avec le territoire où ils exercent leurs droits culturels. Ce rapport apparent entre des notions sociales, géographiques et juridiques peut s’expliquer au regard de la géographie du droit, une théorie estimant que l’interface du droit et de l’espace sert à modeler la vie sociale sise sur un territoire. Les théories critiques développées par la géographie du droit permettent cependant de soutenir que la suprématie réclamée par les États et les droits des tiers sur les territoires peuvent servir notamment de vecteurs au droit et à l’espace afin de nier les revendications foncières autochtones et, avec elles, de restreindre le rapport particulier qui les unit à leur territoire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".