Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In using an international human rights approach, this thesis assesses the fulfillment of linguistic rights for indigenous peoples and communities living in seven Arctic states (i.e. Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russian Federation, Canada, USA/Alaska, Denmark/Greenland). The core study of this research is to ask whether the use of an international human rights approach to language rights is best suited to protect the need of Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic. In doing so, this thesis monitors the fulfillment of linguistic rights in three fields which are commonly regarded in several international human rights documents (ICCPR, CRC, ILO 169, UNDRIP, ADRIP) as belonging to realm of basic human rights, namely education, court proceedings, and communication with the authorities. Following a country-specific approach, this thesis concludes that although Arctic indigenous linguistic rights are already enshrined in key legally-binding instruments and in documents, which reflect lex feranda and could lead to legislative improvements, States mostly rely on their own domestic legal systems through they implement the checks and balances that protect linguistic 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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it