Land claim negotiations and indigenous claimant legibility in Canada and New Zealand
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
In 1973 Canada instituted a land claims negotiation policy. Records reveal that the government felt reasonably confident that Indian bands, on average, represented defined political actors with whom the federal government could engage in a negotiation policy. By contrast, New Zealand’s Maori claims negotiation policy was soon challenged by the cabinet’s lack of confidence in key aspects of the average Maori negotiating party. New Zealand’s policy response was to require Maori claimants to engage in a group certification process as a precursor to negotiation. Why did one government feel that indigenous claimants were transparent, while the other did not? Through an analysis building on James Scott’s concept of legibility, I examine historical processes of group formalization which led to different average indigenous claimant legibility in Canada and New Zealand. My analysis shows that negotiation policies can be considered an important contemporary process which has important implications for indigenous group life.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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