Change in the Status of the Crimean Tatars: from National Minority to Indigenous People?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starting from the 1950s the term “indigenous peoples” has gaineda tenacious worldwide popularity thanks to growing academic focuson the rights of Indian and Inuit peoples. Contiguous normativeefforts of some influential international organizations such as International Labour Organization, World Bank, and United Nations alsoencouraged the instrumentalization of the term by some right-seeking disadvantaged groups. Since the 1990s, the Crimean Tatars havealso strived to be recognized as “indigenous people of Crimea”. Theyeventually seemed to have reached their goals. Ukrainian parliamentgave the status of indigenous people to Crimean Tatars after RussianFederation’s seizure of Crimea in March 2014. However, the seizureitself prevented the implementation of the parliament act. This articlemainly focuses on the reasons behind Tatar claims for gaining theindigenous people status as well as Ukraine’s and Russian Federation’sreactions to those claims. The main objective of the article is to identify historical changes in the status of the Crimean Tatars.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".