Indigenous Self-Government in the Arctic, and their Right to Land and Natural Resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The article examines the evolution in international law of indigenous self-government and their control over their land and resources, and explores the extent to which this is being followed up at the national level with particular emphasis on Arctic and other Northern indigenous peoples. It starts by discussing the concept of ‘indigenous peoples’, noting that most of them live in areas that have until recently been considered to be marginal by the dominant parts of society, and observes that two contradictory trends can presently be observed: On the one hand a growing pressure, in the context of expanding economic globalisation and intensification of consumption, for access to the natural resources in the areas where they live, but on the other hand a growing resistance through improved organisation by the indigenous peoples themselves and by a growing recognition of their rights under international law. The impact of this general evolution at the global level on specific cases are examined with regards to the Inuit-controlled self-government of Nunavut in Canada, the move towards full independence of Inuit-controlled Greenland, and the evolution of Sámi self-management in Sámi land of Fenno-Scandinavia.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".