MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3081639018 · doi:10.1163/24688800-00302002

Yearning for Recognition: Indigenous Formosans and the Limits of Indigeneity

2020· article· en· W3081639018 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Simon

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Taiwan Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSovereigntyPolitical sciencePoliticsSociologyIndigenous rightsGovernment (linguistics)Gender studiesLawPolitical economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Indigeneity, enshrined in the 2007 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, is an international governance model that promises sovereignty and self-government to indigenous nations. Anthropologists have expressed concern that indigeneity may become an avatar of neoliberal governance that benefits a small elite and contributes to the hypermarginalisation of the poor. This multi-scalar ethnography explores the meaning of indigeneity in Seediq and Truku communities. The author concurs that legal indigeneity fails to meet the needs of the poor. Most ordinary indigenous people perceive that they already benefit from Taiwan’s existing legal framework and fail to understand the need for new institutions. For the case of Taiwan, moreover, the limits of indigeneity are most evident in the exclusion of Taiwanese indigenous peoples—and Taiwan—from United Nations mechanisms. As indigeneity degenerates into great power politics, it falls short of its aspirations to recognise indigenous nations as ontological equals to established states.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Taiwan StudiesSame topicSoutheast Asian Sociopolitical StudiesFrench-language works237,207