MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2962655545

Indigenous language and language rights in Australia after the 'Mabo' (no 2) decision - a poor report card

2017· article· en· W2962655545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laura Beacroft

Bibliographic record

VenueJames Cook University law review/JCU law review · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMultilingual Education and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousEconomic JusticeDisadvantageIndigenous languageLawHigh CourtGovernment (linguistics)PoliticsPolitical scienceProject commissioningSociologyPublishingLinguistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates one element of the decision in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 CLR 1, namely Indigenous languages, and whether there has been a transformational shift in the treatment and recognition of Indigenous languages and language rights post-Mabo. The paper considers how central language was to the success and content of the Mabo decision. It then critically analyses language rights and laws in Australia, and how these rights are met, or otherwise, in Australia. Native title has opened a window for language recognition in some circumstances for some native title holders, which has been transformational in practice for some native title holders and symbolically transformational for Australia. Otherwise the Report card for Australia on respectful treatments and recognition of Indigenous languages is very poor. Case-studies in modern-day discrimination against Indigenous language speakers are presented, in the education system, in consultation about Indigenous-specific government initiates, in voting and in the criminal justice system. This is in contrast to comparable nations such as New Zealand and Canada, and requirements under International treaties that Australia has ratified or committed to. The way forward is not technically elusive given successful precedents world-wide. Overcoming hurdles for recognition partly rest with exposing and firmly rejecting socio-political views that Indigenous languages are problems, and naturally becoming extinct. A first step is to improve the Overcoming Disadvantage framework, which is supported by all governments, so that it includes indicators that monitor progress in overcoming discrimination, including overcoming discrimination against Indigenous language speakers. Such indicators need to be informed by a view that Indigenous languages are precious and empowering resources for Indigenous peoples, and indeed all Australians and all of earth's citizens.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJames Cook University law review/JCU law reviewSame topicMultilingual Education and PolicyFrench-language works237,207