Bibliographic record
Abstract
I would like to thank the organizers of this conference, especially Arif Bulkan and Velma Newton, for inviting me to speak and welcoming me to Belize.\nTom Berger has made my task much easier by presenting the philosophical and legal underpinnings for Indigenous land rights, and providing an introduction to the development of the doctrine of Aboriginal title in Canada.\nI am going to try to fill in some of the detail by drawing a composite picture of Indigenous rights in the four common law jurisdictions that I am familiar with, namely Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.\nI will also talk about the important 2014 decision in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, where the Supreme Court of Canada issued a declaration of Aboriginal title for the very first time.\nAt the outset, I would like to emphasize that Indigenous rights are not just rights to lands and resources – they include rights in relation to Indigenous law and governance authority.\nI am going to address three main issues:1. The source and proof of Indigenous rights;2. The content of Indigenous rights; and3. Extinguishment and infringement of Indigenous 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 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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".