Aboriginal oral testimony, hearsay rule and the reception theory of admissibility
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
Aboriginal peoples title claims are presumed upon spatial and time connections to the lands of their ancestors. In making their submissions, litigants have to circumvent the rule against hearsay and rely upon oral narratives to substantiate their claims of customary ties to land. The obstacles they face is that evidence based on informal anecdotes can cause problems in common law courts, which have long been dependent on textual evidence for probative value. In many Native cultures the idea of time is cyclical, while in the Judeo-Christian calendar time is linear. There is also the fact that oral narratives cannot be viewed in the abstract and the histories are closely linked to inter-generational continuity. The perspective of a narrator is relevant as the sources are often repositories of observation, knowledge and personal belief rather than clear factual understanding of the issue involved. This paper argues for the receptive theory of oral evidence to be adopted in common law courts, which would lead to a fair hearing of Aboriginal claims to land title in Australian and Canadian courts. The paper will distinguish the courts’ current approach to oral testimony submitted by aboriginal people and raise the possibility of an integrated approach based on the recourse to ‘episteme’, which is the appreciation derived from synthesis that accepts that several methodologies may exist and interact at the same time by being parts of various knowledge systems.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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