MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2300397219

My People's Courts as Agents of Indigenous Decolonisation?

2001· article· en· W2300397219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter H. Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw in context · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousProject commissioningDecolonizationPoliticsLawTreatyAutonomyPolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)PublishingJudicial reviewAssertionEconomic JusticePublic administrationSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the role of the judiciary in the process of Indigenous decolonisation and the assertion of rights to selfdetermination in Canada, Australia the United States and New Zealand. Russell is particularly interested in the relation between judicial decisions and the political activity of governments. An historical account of relevant court cases is provided in order to contrast more recent judicial interpretations in this area, notably Mabo in Australia and the Nisga Treaty in Canada. Russell argues that the role of the judiciary in the decolonisation project is, at best, to act as a catalyst or prod for political action by government. Ultimately, justice will require political agreements mediating integration and autonomy, though the judicial role in this process is far from insignificant.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw in contextSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207