Miranda Johnson. The Land Is Our History: Indigeneity, Law, and the Settler State.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important contributions of Miranda Johnson’s The Land Is Our History: Indigeneity, Law, and the Settler State is to invigorate the value of “comparative history.” Johnson demonstrates the importance of the legal and political context that accompanied reconciling a colonial past with a continuing Indigenous present. Her book sets out the beginnings of new practices, representations, and relationships in settler states, where Indigenous peoples were once deemed to be fated to vanish from the social and cultural landscape. Johnson provides a careful comparison of the beginnings of contemporary struggles across the colonial settler geographies of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The book is an important source of insight into the differences and legal connectivities between three settler states that shared British common-law traditions. The book is well written, and six chapters set out the distinct struggles to recognize claims to preexisting Indigeneity in these liberal democracies. Indigeneity refers here specifically to retroactive legal claims to the territory of ancestors dispossessed by settler colonists. Johnson’s focus is not an exhaustive history of Indigenous rights in settler states, but rather an exploration of a number of seminal events in the emergence and revitalization of struggles for contemporary rights.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".