Bibliographic record
Abstract
The property interests of Indigenous communities exhibit distinctive patterns that recur across different countries and in relation to widely differing Indigenous cultures, including in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The principal recurring patterns include alienation restraints, group governance powers as an incident of land tenure, distinctive rules of co-ownership favouring collective governance, and unique collective and individual estates in land. This paper argues that these distinctive doctrinal features can be explained in large part by the functional challenges associated with using property interests in land as a basis for collective self-government. One of the central challenges relates to differences in the optimal scale of various uses that may be pursued on a land base. While uses like housing or farming might best be pursued using individual land titles over relatively small parcels, the collective interest of a group in self-government could require an extensive, contiguous land base occupied by a critical mass of members. The use of land as a locus for a distinctive, self-governing culture is thus an activity that is optimally pursued on a larger scale than would be optimal for most other uses which may be pursued simultaneously. The tension this creates, emerging out of the attempt to manage what the author calls a “cultural semicommons,” is mediated by a distinctive set of institutions. Understanding this functional basis for Indigenous land tenure in common law countries is an important starting point in considering proposals for reform.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".