Indigenous Peoples’ Struggle for Secure Land Tenure in the Philippines: Case Study of Higaonon Tribe in Opol, Mindanao
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples worldwide struggle for control over land and natural resources against encroachment of state interests, external development and commercial pressures such as agribusiness, dams, logging and mining. Their battle to protect land and natural resources is at the same time the struggle to preserve indigenous culture and traditions often inextricably linked to the land itself. The Philippine Indigenous Peoples Rights Act recognizes the indigenous peoples’ rights to their ancestral lands and domains and offers a way of improving their land tenure security. The article employs case study design to illustrate the implementation gap between the rights of indigenous peoples in law and practice and the role different stakeholders play in securing indigenous peoples’ land tenure and dealing with palm oil agribusiness and mining industries’ interests in ancestral domains on the case of Higaonon tribe in Misamis Oriental province, Mindanao. The methodology for data collection was focus group discussions and key informant interviews with representatives of tribal leaders and members, non-government organizations and government bodies. Our results indicate that conflicting laws and mandates of various government bodies and lack of coordination between them, as well as lack of resources and political will to implement the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act are important factors behind slow issuance of ancestral domain titles. At the same time, we show that significant factor in the land tenure insecurity of indigenous peoples is disunity within the tribe and conflicting interests of its members and clans used by companies to further enhance their business interests. r, regarding weaving and finishing the rim, it should be done neatly without visible welded joints, and also 5) the product quality: each part is assembled fixing by leather, inside of the product is attached by cloth as well as filled with leftover fabric. Besides, the sewing should be considerably emphasized the strength to carry weight. In addition, the overall assessment of handcraft vetiver seat cushion model is at a high level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".