MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014376924 · doi:10.1353/tlj.0.0023

The Association of State and Indigenous Law: A Case Study in 'Legal Association'

2009· article· en· W2014376924 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicole Roughan

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Toronto Law Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousLawState (computer science)NormativeLegal researchPolitical scienceAssociation (psychology)Legal pluralismLegal realismEmpirical legal studiesLegal opinionAssociative propertyLegal professionComparative lawPrivate lawBlack letter lawEpistemologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legal systems are typically marked out by jurisdictional boundaries that exclude the operation of external legal norms except where these are explicitly incorporated. Yet legal systems are frequently engaged in 'legal associations,' the process of looking to another legal system in order to formulate rules and standards. This article examines the dimensions of legal associations that may occur between state law and the law of indigenous groups within the state, using the state–indigenous association in New Zealand to illustrate the range of associative models and their normative implications.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Toronto Law JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207