The Law of the Other: Exploring the Paradox of Legal Pluralism in Australian Native Title
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the Mabo case (1992), the Australian High Court recognised for the first time that Indigenous peoples held native title over their ancestral territories. This title demonstrates not only the contemporary existence of systems of traditional law that support rights to land, but also the existence of legal pluralism in Australia. Nonetheless, the Court confirms that the common law is the only law in Australia, relegating Indigenous law to the status of a social fact. This paradox is explored in this text through three case studies: the Yorta Yorta decision, in which the Court found that the claimant community's law no longer existed as a social fact; the strategies of translation in anthropological evidence given in the Neowarra case; and the use of a painting as proof of title in the Ngurrara claim. My intention is to demonstrate that even if there is a disparity of power between the common law and Indigenous law, they do not exist on separate planes, and are, on the contrary, mutually implicated.
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 | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".