Denmark’s Obligations Regarding Mineral Resources in Greenland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Greenland has rich deposits of natural resources. Some of them could have the potential to be commercially developed. The exploitation of these resources could provide enormous opportunities for Greenland’s economic development. Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark and enjoys far reaching rights of self-government. The population of Greenland is overwhelmingly Inuit, a people elsewhere recognized as an Indigenous people. The question concerning the exploitation of the natural resources is thus a complicated legal issue. International law provides indigenous peoples with special rights concerning the natural resources in their territory as referenced in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and ILO Convention 169. The Kingdom of Denmark thus has international obligations regarding free, prior and informed consent. At the national level, the Self-Government Act includes provisions concerning natural resources, and this area is under the sole competence of the self-government. The Greenlandic Mineral Resources Act includes provisions on participation and consultation processes of local inhabitants. This article discusses whether the Kingdom of Denmark, through the Self-Government Act, lives up to its obligations under international law regarding the rights of the Inuit people in relation to the natural resources in their territory.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".