Post-UNDRIP makes a difference : UNDRIP promotes indigenous rights in liberal democracies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative case study examines the use of Constructivist International Relations theory on indigenous issues in liberal democracies. The thesis focuses on the impact of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) on the United States, Canada, and Australia. ... My study demonstrates that Indigenous people have used this Constructivist view of the world to influence their own states through international organizations and have based advocacy strategies. The thesis demonstrates that post-UNDRIP domestic legislation in the US, Canada, and Australia are in line with the indigenous rights in the Declaration. In some instances, the legislation has directly referenced the UNDRIP. The proposed legislation has provided evidence of strengthened of indigenous advocacy and indigenous rights in the post-UNDRIP era. These findings are significant because it adds to the research of both indigenous theory and Constructivist theory. It demonstrates the importance of Constructivist theory on nation-state's domestic affairs as well as understanding state relations with the international organization. ... My study highlights that Constructivist theory not only helps us reexamine international relations theories, but also provides insight into indigenous strategies on a large scale. ..."
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".