MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808027111 · doi:10.1515/gj-2017-0037

The jurisprudential basis to the common law notion of Indigenous title: Some comparisons

2018· article· en· W2808027111 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Jurist · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousLand lawLawLand rightsSet (abstract data type)Political scienceIndigenous cultureLaw and economicsGeographyLand tenureSociologyEcologyEnvironmental planningArchaeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Indigenous title is a unique form of land ownership whereby settlers who occupy land previously inhabited by Indigenous people recognize within their set of laws a legal right possessed by Indigenous people to own their ancestral land. In this paper I examine three jurisprudential criteria by which Indigenous title can be identified: the first based on traditional law or custom, the second on exclusive occupation of the land, and the third on intensive use of the land. Finding flaws with the first two criteria, I argue for a juridical approach to Indigenous title that emphasizes intensive use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal JuristSame topicIndigenous Peoples' Rights and LawFrench-language works237,207