On the Autonomy and Territorial Interests of the Indigenous Peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East of Russia at the Present Stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the problems of ethnic and territorial autonomy, and the various models for protecting territorial interests at the present stage of development of the Russian Federation and the Indigenous peoples of the North, Siberia, and the Far East. The amalgamation or merger (‘ ukrupnenie ’) of autonomous areas, territories, and regions that has been taking place since 2005, presents a series of challenges concerning crucial issues of preservation and development for the Indigenous ethnic groups in the North of Russia. The results of the 2005 referendums on merging subjects (territorial-based jurisdictions) of the Russian Federation, which passed by a significant margin, demonstrate the democratic standards and procedures underlying the attempt to abolish the ethnic and territorial autonomies. However, the inadequacy and inefficiency of state security and protection of Indigenous peoples’ rights to use natural resources becomes more complex when the subject regions are merged. This article studies the issues relating to different forms of autonomy; the constitutional and legal understanding of the autonomy; the validity of ethnic and territorial autonomy as a special political-legal method to protect ethnic groups; as well as legal mechanisms for ensuring the interests of the Indigenous peoples in deciding the territorial issues. The paper is part of a special collection of brief discussion papers presented at the 2014 Walleye Seminar, held in Northern Saskatchewan, which explored consultation and engagement with northern communities and stakeholders in resource development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".