Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was a landmark decision for indigenous rights. UNDRIP promises indigenous peoples the restitution of their land, resource, and political self-determination rights to the greatest extent possible. It aims to ensure that indigenous peoples are treated equal to other peoples. It also means to rectify the past unjust dispossession and forced political incorporation that indigenous peoples have experienced during colonialism. Yet, today, other peoples or states often occupy and use traditional lands of indigenous peoples. If indigenous peoples regain their traditional lands and sovereignty over them, the current occupants stand to lose their current rights. Thus, the challenge that indigenous rights pose is how to reconcile these conflicting rights or, if reconciliation is not possible, how to decide whose rights should prevail. This question is the topic of this thesis. \nThe thesis argues for two things. First, it holds that when deciding which rights should be restituted to indigenous peoples we need to look at all the different interests that land and self-determination rights protect. For example, people can have economic or cultural interests in land. In some cases, these interests are incompatible but in other cases, rights can be shared in such a manner that the main interests of each party can be protected. Second, the thesis argues that indigenous peoples have a special interest in being recognized as moral equals by their former colonizers. During colonialism, the alleged inferiority of indigenous peoples justified the denial of indigenous land and self-determination rights. Therefore, the recognition of these rights nowadays serves as an affirmation of the moral status equality of indigenous peoples. This special interest of indigenous peoples must be taken into account when deciding rights conflicts between indigenous peoples and settler 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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".