MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2309155453

Post-UNDRIP makes a difference : UNDRIP promotes indigenous rights in liberal democracies.

2020· other· en· W2309155453 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natasha John

Bibliographic record

VenueSHAREOK (University of Oklahoma) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousPolitical scienceLiberal democracyIndigenous rightsPolitical economyLaw and economicsPoliticsLawDemocracySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSHAREOK (University of Oklahoma)Same topicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and LawFrench-language works237,207