Coutume Autochtone Et Gouvernance Environnementale Dans Le Système Interaméricain De Protection Des Droits De L’Homme (Aboriginal Custom and Environmental Governance in the Interamerican System of Human Rights)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Le Canada, comme plusieurs pays, est confronte au defi du dialogue des cultures juridiques autochtones et occidentales dans le domaine du droit de l’environnement. Cet article analyse la jurisprudence recente de la Cour interamericaine des droits de l’homme pour identifier l’apport du droit international des droits de l’homme a la construction d’un espace coutumier autochtone pour la gestion et la protection de l’environnement des terres traditionnelles des peuples autochtones. L’auteur demontre le rapport fonctionnel qui existe entre la protection internationale des droits de groupe sur les terres traditionnelles autochtones par le biais d’une interpretation pluraliste de la propriete et la reconnaissance de la coutume autochtone comme source a laquelle le droit de l’environnement pourra s’abreuver.English Abstract: Like many other countries, Canada is confronted with the challenge of a dialogue between western and indigenous legal cultures in the field of environmental law. This article analyses the recent jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in order to assess the contribution of international human rights law to the creation of a normative space for indigenous custom in managing and protecting the environment of traditional indigenous territory. The author demonstrates the functional connection between the recognition of indigenous customary law as a source of environmental law and the international recognition of indigenous group rights to land and natural resources based on a pluralistic interpretation of property rights.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".