MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329572589 · doi:10.2307/4127184

Restitution of Land to New Zealand Maori: The Role of Social Structure

2002· article· en· W2329572589 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Affairs · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProperty Rights and Legal Doctrine
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRestitutionPolitical scienceGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

or twenty-five years the government of New Zealand has been engaged in a process of restitution of property to Maori. The first version of the restitution law was passed in 1975; it was very limited in scope and applicable only to grievances incurred post-1975. In 1985, the law was amended to extend coverage back to 1840, thus enabling a multitude of tribes and individuals to file claims. The law provided for creation of a special court, the Waitangi Tribunal, to hear claims, to make findings, and to make recommendations to the government for settling claims found to be valid. Over 700 claims have been filed. Those being given priority are the historic claims of tribes for alienated property, primarily land, but also including fishing rights. This article describes settlements of historic tribal claims to land achieved

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.865

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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