On the Crest of a Wave: Indigenous Title and Claims to the Water Resource
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The modern doctrine of indigenous title is recognized in the courts of the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia and although the formulation of the doctrine may originate from a similar base, it shows signs of divergence in the four jurisdictions. Differences arise in relation to method of extinguishments, the payment of compensation and the recognition of a fiduciary duty owed toward indigenous peoples. The jurisprudence of the four nations, however, still provides persuasive guidance in applying the doctrine to particular resources. Therefore, in light of North American and Australian decisions and practices, Maori indigenous title rights clearly exist in respect of the sea. Maori title rights to the waters of rivers and lakes also remain because they have not been extinguished by the common law or legislation. Individual hapu and iwi can therefore claim a customary title to particular waters by proving the nature and content of that right via tikanga. Indigenous title is therefore a potent source for the recognition of Maori rights to the water resource. Subsequently any attempt by the Crown to extinguish a recognised title will require compensation to be paid to the relevant hapu or iwi.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".