MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611899199 · doi:10.1163/9789004328785_004

Why Majority Rights Matter in the Context of Ethno-Cultural Diversity: The Interlinkage of Minority Rights, Indigenous Rights, and Majority Rights

2017· article· en· W2611899199 on OpenAlexaff
Dwight Newman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinority rightsIndigenous rightsInternational human rights lawPolitical scienceLinguistic rightsReservation of rightsIndigenousHuman rightsFundamental rightsRights of NatureRight to propertyLawContext (archaeology)Law and economicsSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many discussions of ethno-cultural minority rights and indigenous rights have proceeded on the assumption that such rights flow from minority status or indigenous status rather than from collective interests of these communities. This focus on marginalized identities as the source of rights held by communities implicitly excludes the possibility of rights held by majority communities. This chapter challenges such an approach and simultaneously argues for the reality of majority rights. Part 1 contextualizes the issues and introduces the chapter. Part 2 explains a first disadvantage for minorities and indigenous communities themselves in an approach focused on marginalization, which is effectively that the approach risks locking them into victimhood. Part 3 considers the particular problems of minority groups that have regional majority status and thus need majority rights. Part 4 considers the particular problems of indigenous communities that have self-governmental powers recognized and thus similarly need majority rights within their jurisdiction. Part 5 introduces the author’s broader theoretical approach to collective rights, grounded in collective interests, and commences an argument that this approach properly grounds majority rights alongside minority rights and indigenous rights. Part 6 considers the frequent challenge that majority rights will be used to diminish minority rights and presents an account of how these different categories of rights can appropriately be reconciled. Part 7 introduces several policy implications, and Part 8 offers some brief concluding thoughts. Ultimately, the chapter argues for recognizing majority rights on the same platform as minority rights and indigenous rights, though arguing for a different platform than is often used for those rights, and argues that a principled approach to all of these rights can offer a set of interlinking rights that respect all communities.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.041
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and LawFrench-language works237,207