Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Aboriginal title” is a legal construct described as a right to land, encompassing a right to the exclusive use and occupation of lands held under this title. Private property, particularly fee simple title, is protected within registry systems as “indefeasible title.” Fee simple title signals the right of exclusive possession of a defined parcel of land, and encompasses a bundle of rights tied to this form of fundamental ownership in the common law system. Indefeasible title protects the fee simple titleholder form external challenge, even from the government.The existence of these two forms of property interests, Aboriginal title and fee simple title, seems to demand some sort of “reconciliation.” It appears these two legal regimes must intersect “on the ground” in some manner, for it seems unavoidable that at some point in the future Aboriginal title will be established over an extent of land held as private property by third parties.This chapter explores the development of Aboriginal title, and juxtaposes this legal concept with common understandings of fee simple title, to see if sense can be made of the idea that both could apply to one common parcel of land (or if the exclusion of one in the face of the other is the likely outcome.) The chapter examines possible guiding principles (minimization of social disruption and respect) and focuses on what might be responsible for development and implementation of such guiding principles into “law on the ground.” The author then considers how to think about, and potentially react to, the fact that this matter plays out within the power structure of the colonial society that ignored the existence of the claims of Indigenous societies for so long.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".