Facets of sovereignty. Institutions that Spur and Institutions that Retard Tribal Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
That so many of their assets continue to be held in governmental trusts under outdated policy rationales creates great difficulty for indigenous peoples. But restoring control of those assets to their rightful owners will impose daunting responsibilities on judiciaries. Exchanging assets for a residual share of returns from a joint venture exposes one to shirking by co-investors. Judiciaries known reliably to penalize those who renege on commitments help investors persuade others to sink complementary assets in promising projects. But a court is an arm of the sovereign. Across history and geography justifiable rulings adverse to sovereigns have so often been honored in the breach that private parties are especially leery of sovereigns as co-investors. To attract assets into its realm a sovereign may thus invest in a reputation for abiding by waivers of sovereign immunity, or rely on a still stronger sovereign to bond its waivers. Reputations arise from observed court successes by aggrieved co-investors when their suits against the sovereign are meritorious. But many tribal reservations are small and poor, have offered few investment opportunities, and hence possess thin legal histories. At the same time, investors are skeptical that courts of more powerful sovereigns such as Canada and the United States dependably bond tribal waivers. Thus tribes often must pay investors high risk-premiums, resort to costly tribal ownership, or even forego promising opportunities altogether. The Sovereign’s Paradox refers to the difficulty that an entity with power to compel involuntary outcomes has in negotiating voluntary ones. This chapter explores ways to ameliorate that Paradox and thus improve returns from reservation assets.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".