MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184528703

TERRITORIAL RIGHTS IN GREENLAND: SOME PRELIMINARY NOTES

2016· article· en· W2184528703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jens Br

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnnexationArticulation (sociology)Property rightsPolitical sciencePrivilege (computing)GeographyLand lawDanishLand tenureLawArchaeologyPoliticsAgriculture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Greenlandic Inuit system of land tenure is discussed in a preliminary manner as part of an ongoing research project. Territorial rights under the native lex loci are treated, first, in terms of general territorial rights and, secondly, in terms of the privilege of certain individuals and groups to utilize special elements of the territory. Is the right to enjoy the re- sources of the land free for everyone or is it based on membership of the local community? Cur- rent territorial rights can be sought through the traditional system of land tenure as modified through the Danish colonial annexation by express acts. The Land Use and Planning Act for Greenland is described briefly. The articulation between the Greenlandic lex loci and the Danish legal system now encompassing it is dealt with, focusing on the applicability of the con- stitutional protection of property to Greenlandic territorial rights. American military installa- tions in Greenland are presented as a major case in point.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207