Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article discusses the divergent interpretations of what the free, prior, and informed consent (fpic) provisions in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (undrip) mean, showing how textual and purposive interpretations end up with different positions. The article engages more broadly with the appropriate approach to interpretation of General Assembly resolutions and argues that undrip is within a particular category that are more treaty-like in character and to which principles of treaty interpretation should be applied. The application of those principles supports both divergent interpretations but calls for them to be combined in light of other interpretive factors, all of which have the potential to continue shifting over time. Within the context of undrip interpretation having received much less direct attention than it should, the article seeks to contribute to ongoing conversations on how to interpret undrip in ways that support a sustainable implementation of fpic.
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 | 0.117 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".