MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2473005322 · doi:10.1177/1743872115625625

Cross-cultural Conflict about Property Rights in Wild Animals in Australia: Law and Cinema

2016· article· en· W2473005322 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy E. Wright, Andrew R. Buck

Bibliographic record

VenueLaw Culture and the Humanities · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierIndigenousMovie theaterCultural propertyContext (archaeology)Relation (database)Property (philosophy)LawPolitical scienceRepresentation (politics)Property rightsSociologyEnvironmental ethicsEpistemologyGeographyPoliticsPhilosophyCultural heritageArtEcologyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pierson v. Post is widely known to both jurists and law students in relation to the question of property rights in wild animals. This article builds on Pierson v. Post and its literature by analyzing the question of ferae naturae in the context of settler and indigenous conflict on the Australian frontier in the nineteenth century. By examining both case law and the cinematic representation of the conflict over property rights on the frontier, it is argued that an understanding of the legal issues relating to ferae naturae is enhanced by an appreciation of the complexity of cross-cultural communication.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaw Culture and the HumanitiesSame topicLaw in Society and CultureFrench-language works237,207