Safe Haven for an Indigenous Fugitive: Indigenous Internationalism and Illegal Protests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O ver the past forty years, the movement of indigenous internationalism has grown remarkably. 1 The creation of a number of indigenous international organizations in the 1970s, namely the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP), helped generate a broad base for collaboration between peoples.The establishment in 1982 of the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations, and in 2008, the Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, has secured stable centers for continued efforts.Anthropologist Ronald Niezen, among others, has correctly asserted that despite these rapid developments, scholars have too often overlooked indigenous internationalism (or to use Niezen' s term, "international indigenism").Niezen complains that violent local insurrections tend to draw a great deal of attention, even though the "international indigenous peoples' movement addresses many of the same issues that lie behind rebellions and insurrections, but without violence or even illegal forms of protest." 2 Formal elements of indigenous internationalism-that is, indigenous participation in existing international bodies, as well as the creation of international organizations by and for indigenous peoples-make up the largest (and likely the most effective) part of the movement.Consequently, what little attention has been paid to indigenous internationalism has focused primarily on contact between indigenous peoples and international organizations like the League of Nations 3 and the United Nations, 4 and, somewhat less frequently, on indigenous international organizations such as the IITC and WCIP. 5
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".