Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interplay of treaty rights with the right to culture has produced a variety of results for Native American subsistence hunting and fishing rights in the United States. Where allocation and conservation measures fail to account for cultural considerations, conflict ensues. This article discusses three examples: waterfowl hunting in Alaska, Northwest salmon fishing, and Inuit and Makah whaling. Each demonstrates that treaty rights are a more powerful force than cultural rights in the law, but that both play important roles in actual policy outcomes. A more detailed examination of whaling indicates how the insertion of needs-based criteria into a framework of cultural rights shifts the benefit of presumption away from indigenous groups. The cultural revival issues and conflicting paradigms involved in Makah whaling policy debates indicate how notions of tradition, authenticity, and self-determination complicate the process of producing resource policies that recognize cultural diversity.
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 | 0.016 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".