Indigenous Peoples in Europe and Their International Protection vis-à-vis the Threat of Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous peoples are among the most vulnerable sectors of society in the face of climate change because they generally have a profound and spiritual relationship with the(ir) land. Paradoxically, they are among those who have maintained and promoted a holistic management of the(ir) land and the environment, and have caused less climate change effects. The Inuit petition against the US at the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights has prompted the debate and an increased international attention on climate change effects and human (and indigenous) rights. However, the nexus between human rights and climate change raises several conceptual issues. Against this background, this article pursues a threefold goal. First, it aims to introduce the international debate, scholarly approaches, and conceptual and analytical questions that have arisen and still arise about the human rights-climate change nexus. Second, it tries to ascertain how the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources, such as fossil fuels (e.g. oil and gas), are contributing to climate change and how (some of) its adverse effects may—directly or indirectly—represent a threat for indigenous peoples and their rights in the Russian Federation and in Northern Europe (Denmark-Greenland, Finland, Norway, and Sweden). Third, it seeks to identify which indigenous international law instruments may offer (some) protection to these indigenous peoples against (few) climate change-related harms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".