Free, Prior, and Informed Consent: The Olympic Movement’s International Responsibilities to Indigenous Peoples in Canada and across the Globe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Over the last half-century, the rights of Indigenous peoples have been recognized and engraved within international practice and law. Throughout this same period, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has not expressed its readiness, or its willingness, to observe such developing ethical and legal principles. Subsequently, through the hosting of the Olympic Games, the IOC continues to move freely throughout the world and onto Indigenous lands. This paper argues that the IOC has legal and moral obligations—as an international organization with far-reaching powers and stated commitments to social responsibility, ethical principles, and the preservation of human dignity—to uphold international practices and laws concerning universal standards for the survival, dignity, well-being, and rights of Indigenous peoples. If the IOC accepts these responsibilities, it may begin to fulfill truthfully its mandate and start to make meaningful contributions to the advancement of the rights of Indigenous peoples in Canada and around the world.
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 | 0.065 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".