Aboriginal land rights in Australia remains an unruly horse : aantekeninge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
process of colonisation and the concommitant dispossession of land appear to go hand in hand. Without exception, in dispossessing the indigenous people of their land and physically removing them from their land, colonisers gave no thought to the psyche of the dispossessed. indigenous people were simply overridden by the process of colonisation - although not without resistance. Such resistance never totally ceases and in most cases eventually leads to recrimination, litigation and legislation. two most prominent examples of this process are Canada and Australia. I have dealt with Canada quite extensively (Barrie The American Indian and tribal law: lessons and guidelines for South African indigenous 2003 TSAR 160; International law and indigenous land rights: further lessons for South Africa 2005 TSAR 384; The validity of historical aboriginal treaty rights: the Canadian experience 2006 TSAR 803; 19th century treaties and 21st century realities: tensions in Canada and rebus sic stantibus 2007 TSAR 780) and now turn to Australia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".