Indigenous Peoples at the Margin of the Global Economy: A Violation of International Human Rights and International Trade Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1999 Human Development Report, which uses data from 1996 and 1997, Canada was ranked first among the 174 countries included in the report, and had the highest over all Human Development Index [HDI] score.Calculating HDI scores for Registered Indians, including those living on and off reserve, reveals a substantially lower HDI score for the Registered Indian population, which would be ranked about forty-eighth among the countries in the report. 1 I. INTRODUCTION: A WIDE RANGE OF INDIGENOUS RIGHTSOver the last three decades, Indigenous Peoples around the world have won important constitutional recognition of their inherent rights and jurisdiction.Yet, despite these gains, the socio-economic status of Indigenous Peoples has not improved and they continue to be the poorest populations of those countries * Arthur Manuel is a member of the Secwepemc Nation, in the South-Central Interior of British Columbia, Canada.He served as Chief of the Neskonlith Indian Band for eight years and as Chairperson for the Shuswap Nation Tribal Council for seven years.He also headed the Interior Alliance and currently serves as volunteer Chairperson for the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade (INET).This paper is an ongoing case study and portions have been borrowed from an unpublished conference paper entitled Aboriginal Peoples v. Companies And Governments: Who are the Real Stewards of the Land and Forests?Growing International Understanding of Indigenous Proprietary Interests,
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".