Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Native American tribes in the United States have maintained distinctive customs which they practice within their ‘eviscerated’ sovereignty. The tribes exercise their jurisdiction as ‘sovereign’ nations under devolution of their lands granted by the federal government, which still has a right of preemption and the power of alienation. The tribal courts exercise the restorative justice principles that are integral to their judicial procedures and where the emphasis is on healing. The disputes in tribal courts are settled by mediation through Peacekeeping Circles that restore the parties to the pre-trial status and there is input from elders in the community. The Native people not only have to differentiate and preserve their justice framework, but also claim title to land where it has been extinguished by treaty, eminent domain or Executive order of the us government. The argument in this paper is that the restorative justice principle is part of the customary law of the tribes in the us and in Canada, and their dormant land claims can be revisited if this judicial process is maintained in the context of sustaining their customs within the federal legal framework.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".