"Invidious" American Indian Tribal Sovereignty: Morton v. Mancari Contra Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, Rice v. Cayetano, and Other Recent Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3.Major issues in the situation this article will treat are the legal meaning of "Indian" and the criteria by which the federal government determines if individuals and groups are Indian.By "American Indian" I refer to indigenous people both of the forty-eight contiguous states, and of Alaska, although the Inuit and Aleut peoples am not ordinarily subsumed under that term."Alaska Native" refers to indigenous people of Alaska specifically, but for the purposes of this article, distinguishing Alaska Natives from indigenous people of the forty-eight contiguous states is unimportant; therefore I shall use "American Indian" to refer indigenous people of both Alaska and the forty-eight contiguous states, and use "Alaska Native" only when that distinction is relevant.The apparent distinction between "Native Hawaiians," or the indigenous people of Hawaii, and those of the forty-nine continental states is eminently relevant to the purpose of this article, however, so I shall refer to that group of people specifically by that term here.The term "Native American," which is possibly more politically correct, does not necessarily exclude Native Hawaiians in the same fashion as "American Indian" does.I therefore use "Native American" only to refer to all the indigenous peoples of the United States, including Hawaii.The federal government usually refers to American Indians simply as "Indians," probably because that is the term used in the Constitution.U.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".