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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.005 |
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".