Including and Excluding Indigenous Religion through Law
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
Abstract Across the world, indigenous peoples enjoy unprecedented access to international, regional, and domestic legal remedies to gain protections for their religious, spiritual, and customary identities, beliefs, and practices through a wide spectrum of judicial platforms. These remedies provide a broad, inclusive, and “intersectional” vocabulary for indigenous peoples to formulate their rights claims. Despite the growing interest in research on law and religion and the recognition that international human rights law is vital to the formulation of indigenous rights claims, the nature, scope, and effects of the proliferation of international norms protecting “indigenous religion” has so far not been subject to extensive research. Seeking to address this lacuna in the literature, this article explores the extent to which indigenous peoples involved in two recent Supreme Court decisions in Canada and Norway have chosen to rely on the available vocabulary for the formulation of rights claims related to “indigenous religion.”
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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