MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912008813 · doi:10.26021/5328

Te ao tūroa and Aotearoa’s adherence to the indigenous self-determination norm : past, present and future.

2018· dissertation· en· W2912008813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Renata Brian Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Canterbury Research Repository (University of Canterbury) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAotearoaIndigenousNorm (philosophy)PsychologySocial psychologySociologyGender studiesPolitical scienceBiologyLawEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the wake of the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), self-determination has emerged as a norm applying to indigenous peoples globally. This is a positive step forward for some of the world’s most marginalised peoples and a potential means to achieve their decolonisation aspirations through economic, social and cultural development. However, many uncertainties remain as to what self-determination will provide indigenous peoples beyond the conceptual realm and in the ‘black letter’ laws that they are subject to. This thesis attempts to fill the void by considering how the norm can, and should, be operationalised in future. The framework for self-determination developed by James Anaya is adopted as the key analytical frame of reference. Given the importance of lands, waters and resources to indigenous peoples and their cultures, the narrative centres on self-determination through environment and resource management law. First, a stocktake of selfdetermination compliance is carried out by applying Anaya’s framework to various Aotearoa and foreign (Scandinavian Sami and Aboriginal Canadian) legal frameworks. These analyses reveal that there is currently widespread non-compliance with the norm in the examples studied. In spite of that, the analysis also demonstrates that there are certain legal mechanisms that go some way towards the expression of Anaya’s selfdetermination principles. These are: the operational expression of the legal personality concept in the Te Urewera and Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River) settlements, and the balancing of interests embodied in the draft Nordic Sami convention, the Canadian duty to consult and the Waitangi Tribunal’s Ko Aotearoa Tenei report on the Wai 262 inquiry. This thesis concludes that while there is a long road head for the reclamation of indigenous self-determination, these matters potentially provide an insightful platform to begin this conversation in Aotearoa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of Canterbury Research Repository (University of Canterbury)Same topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207