Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nominal sovereignty that the indigenous tribes exercise in the US is further constrained by the federal government exercising the powers of trustee and restricting their rights of alienation over lands. The plenary authority of Congress allows the enactment of all laws impacting on Indians that the federal government deems necessary. It is of overriding effect and has led to the emergence of a land law theory that preserves the power of preemption over the tribal nations. This legal framework dates back to the Marshall doctrine and the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act 1790. The issue is: can there be a reversal of the extinguished title for the indigenous peoples and an assertion of their original claim to rightful ownership? This article compares the land theory that prevails in the US with the developments that have taken place in common law countries, such as Canada and Australia, and concludes that there needs to be an affirmation of the principle of a right in land for the Native people rather than them being ‘tenants at will’ of the federal government.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it