Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the status of indigenous peoples in international law. The author argues that the creation of an international legal regime devoted to indigenous peoples is the first step in achieving appropriate treatment of those peoples by the global community and that this step has finally been taken. The author begins with a historical analysis of the treatment of indigenous peoples under international law. He argues that the shift from a natural law to a positivist paradigm left to their exclusion from the protection of the international legal regime because that shift meant that international law applied only to state actors and not to individuals. Not until the implementation of the trusteeship doctrine by the United Nations after the Second World War did indigenous groups against became the subject of international law. At that point, customary international law on indigenous peoples began to develop, and it continued with the International Labour Organization conventions on the treatment of those peoples in the workforce and the United Nations treaty on racial discrimination. A hardened norm regarding the treatment indigenous peoples was finally crystallized by the establishment of a UN working group and the Draft United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Further evidence that indigenous peoples have been incorporated into the international legal regime comes from the current state practice and the opinion of scholars in the field. This should be cause for optimism about the future treatment of aboriginal people by the international community. The author cautions, however, that the conditions in which many indigenous peoples live belie any assumption that they have achieved relative equality. The development of international norms on the status of indigenous peoples has nonetheless been a move in the right direction.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".