MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565819460

Indigenous peoples and saltwater / freshwater governance

2016· article· en· W2565819460 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lauren Butterly, Benjamin J. Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousAotearoaCorporate governanceProject commissioningPolitical scienceIndigenous rightsTraditional knowledgePublishingGeographyEnvironmental ethicsLawEcologyManagement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From an Indigenous worldview, land and water are one. This separation of how the law deals with land and sea is a Western construct. We can see that deconstructing aqua nullius - both in terms of salt and freshwater - continues to be a major cultural and governance challenge. This challenge is particularly apparent when we are considering Indigenous environmental governance of saltwater and freshwater. In February 2016, we convened an international workshop in Tasmania, on the land and water of the Mouheneenner people, to explore these and other issues in the relationships between Indigenous peoples and their marine and freshwater environments, and the role of law in mediating those relationships. Entitled Indigenous Peoples and Saltwater/ Freshwater Governance for a Sustainable Future, this gathering featured Indigenous and non-Indigenous speakers, of diverse academic and community backgrounds, from Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada and the United States, as well as presenters from across Australia.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.020
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania)Same topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207