Customary International Law and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
!e status of indigenous peoples in international law is a topic of growing interest.1 One area of debate concerns whether there is an international custom that protects the rights of indigenous peoples to their ancestral territories.2 !is paper seeks to add to this literature by examining the effect of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples3 (the “Declaration”), adopted in 2007 by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), on customary international law. As a whole, the Declaration reflects the view that indigenous rights should be protected under a specific regime, or that indigenous rights cannot be subsumed under general human rights law.4 !e Declaration reflects a number of significant principles, including the right to self-determination, the importance of consultation and cooperation between states and indigenous peoples, and recognition of the unique relationship between indigenous peoples and their lands and territories.5 Specifically, this paper asks, does the Declaration provide evidence of an existing
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it