The Draft UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: An Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1 29 June 2006, A/HRC/1/L.10. 2 In 1949, the General Assembly recommended that the Economic and Social Council carry out a study ‘on the social problem of the aboriginal populations . . . of the American continent’, see GA Res. 275(III), 11 May 1949. Additionally, the International Labour Organization (ILO), one of the UN specialised agencies, began to focus on indigenous issues and in 1957, following a number of studies and expert meetings organised under the auspices of the ILO, the first international binding instrument regarding indigenous peoples was adopted: ILO Convention No. 107 Concerning the Protection and Integration of Indigenous and Other Tribal and Semi-Tribal Populations in Independent Countries 1957, 328 UNTS 247. It entered into force on 2 June 1959. This convention was subsequently revised, because of its widely criticised integrationist approach, by ILO Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries 1989, 1650 UNTS 384 (ILO Convention No. 169). However, it should be noted that although the former convention is closed to further ratifications, it is still in force for 18 States (Angola, Bangladesh, Belgium, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, India, Iraq, Malawi, Pakistan, Panama, Portugal, Syrian Arab Republic and Tunisia). For an analysis of the ILO’s involvement in indigenous matters, see Rodr|¤ guez-Pin‹ ero, Indigenous Peoples, Postcolonialism, and International Law. The ILO Regime (1919-1989) (NewYork: Oxford University Press, 2005). 3 For example, the attempt made in the 1920s by the leader of the Council of the Iroquois Confederacy to have the League of Nations consider the Iroquois dispute with Canada. On this, see Anaya, Indigenous Peoples in International Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) at 57.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".