MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561912501 · doi:10.21697/zp.2012.12.4.01

KULTURA I ROZWÓJ JAKO PODSTAWOWE KATEGORIE ODNIESIENIA W TWORZĄCYM SIĘ PRAWIE LUDÓW TUBYLCZYCH

2016· article· en· W2561912501 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zbigniew Rudnicki

Bibliographic record

VenueZeszyty Prawnicze · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTheology and Canon Law Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousDeclaration of independencePolitical scienceEthnic groupLawDeclarationInternational lawColonialismIndependence (probability theory)Human rightsConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CULTURE AND DEVELOPMENT AS THE BASIC CATEGORIESOF REFERENCE IN THE EMERGING LAW OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Summary In contemporary international relations indigenous peoples constitute particular ethnic communities waiting for a long time for the regulation of their status as subjects of international law. Paradoxically, decolonisation, which helped many colonial societies gain national rights, has not only left the issue of indigenous peoples in countries formerly colonised by the White Man unresolved but has also complicated their status. In practice former colonies such as the United States, Canada, Australia or New Zealand have not regulated the legal status of indigenous peoples, relegating them politically and economically to the margins of society. The rights of indigenous peoples as minority groups living in the former Soviet Union, who are not at all colonial peoples officially, have not been defined either. The category of indigenous peoples now extends to many ethnic groups living in nation-states, who are culturally and linguistically distinct with respect to the dominant segments of the national society. However, assigning the attributes of indigenous peoples to them in the strict sense of the term is questionable and is not dealt with in this article. This article traces the process which leads to indigenous peoples acquiring the status of a fully-fledged subject of international law. It describes attempts that have been made to interpret the rights of indigenous peoples on the grounds of the universal instruments of international law. The principal documents are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966), the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), and finally the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1992). Despite the progress made in granting indigenous peoples their rights with the adoption of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights (2007), it is still difficult to talk of full success, i.e. the recognition of the international identity and rights of indigenous peoples on a par with other sovereign nations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueZeszyty PrawniczeSame topicTheology and Canon Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207