Tourism and the Protection of the Cultural Rights and Identity of Indigenous Communities in the Light of the iachr Judgment in the Comunidad Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz y sus miembros v. Honduras Case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Inter-American system of human rights is hailed as being progressive in terms of the rights of Indigenous communities. Yet, an important economic activity in the Americas has a significant negative impact on such communities, without receiving the same international attention and resulting outcry as the activities of extractive industries: mass tourism. In October 2015, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (iachr) issued its decision on the merits in the Comunidad Garífuna Triunfo de la Cruz y sus miembros v. Honduras case. Among other violations, one concerns the failure of the Honduran state to consult with and obtain free, prior and informed consent from the Afro-Indigenous community when it comes to the planning and implementation of tourism projects. Can the Court be more innovative and progressive with regard to the rights of Indigenous peoples of the Americas in the context of the multifaceted manifestations of tourism development?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".