MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3005994486

The Forced Relocation of Indigenous Peoples in Greenland – Repercussions in Tort Law and Beyond

2019· article· en· W3005994486 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie-Louise Holle

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicInternational Maritime Law Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDamagesTribeLawIndigenousExpropriationSupreme courtTortRelocationPolitical scienceCommon lawSettlement (finance)GeographyLiabilityBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1953, the US wished to establish a military base in the Dundas area of Greenland. Greenland was at the time a Danish colony. The Danish authorities granted the American request. The establishment of the military base meant that the over 100 members of the Thule tribe was forcibly relocated to another areas in a matter of very few days. Until then, the Thule tribe had been seminomadic catchers in that specific area for millennials. Only decades later, the Thule Tribe’s claim for damages was tried before the Courts of Denmark. The Thule tribe especially claimed damages for serious interference with their rights as well as loss of hunting opportunities. Stating it was a law measure of legal and valid expropriation, the Supreme Court did award damages, but only amounting to a fraction of the amount claimed by the Thule Tribe. The motivation for the judgment is not quite clear, and seemingly national expropriation rules are at the core of both the lower and the higher courts’ reasoning, perhaps at the expense of international law. Another overlooked aspect is that the courts in several (at least European) countries may seem biased, when the defendant in a tort case is a public authority; in certain legal areas one may even talk of a lenient standard of negligence. Relocation is a removal of a people from their home to another place. It may not always involve violence, direct threats or force, but coercion or other tactics against the removed people, who are not in a position to challenge the relocation. Forced relocations of tribal and indigenous peoples may seem a thing of the past as few still defend colonialism and it is therefore generally seen as a historical trait that has reached its conclusion. Nevertheless, forced relocations of peoples may happen again; in the Arctic for instance several superpowers of this world express much interest in a strategic presence in this specific area. There has been a number of examples of forced relocations of indigenous peoples all over the world, not only in the Artic with the Thule tribe, but also the Canadian First Nations, Native Americans in the US, black citizens of South Africa.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Maritime Law IssuesFrench-language works237,207