MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157347890

Fourth World Approaches to International Law (FWAIL) and Asia's Indigenous Struggles and Quests for Recognition Under International Law

2018· article· en· W3157347890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hiroshi Fukurai

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAsian Geopolitics and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousFourth WorldIndigenous rightsIdeologyInternational lawPolitical scienceColonialismSovereigntyLawPolitical economyState (computer science)Human rightsSociologyPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fourth World Approaches to International law (FWAIL) is proposed to challenge prevailing international legal discourse predicated on the presumed congruence between nation and state, which allows little imagination of the indigenous nation as a culturally and ideologically cohesive community of native populations that have been forcefully captured within, and/or partitioned across, the state system. The term, the Fourth World, was first coined by George Manuel, Chief of the National Indian Brotherhood of Canada, in his 1974 work, The Fourth World: An Indian Reality. He states, “the Fourth World is a vision of the future history of North America and of the Indian people.” American indigenous scholar and activist Winona LaDuke defines the Fourth World as “the Host [and Original] World upon which the First, Second, and Third Worlds all sit at the present time.” FWAIL scholarship posits that all state systems from the First to Third World have been engaging in ongoing colonial occupation and exploitation of original Fourth World people, their land, and resources; the denial of indigenous government and political rights to independence; the conscious devaluation of indigenous tradition, language, and ideologies, in contrast to the conscious elevation of the “civilized” culture of external imposition; and the usurpation of indigenous knowledge and natural resources, resulting in detriment to the welfare of aboriginal communities and inter-human and cross-species relationships in indigenous lands, and to the natural environment and future survival of the Fourth World. By centering the indigenous nation in approaches to the struggles for the right to self-determination, FWAIL seeks to create a socio-legal framework that recognizes the political rights and legal equality of the nation, in order that it may participate in the formulation of national and international policies that affect the indigenous community. FWAIL further investigates the role of the state system acting as an intermediary agency seeking the predatory objectives of international institutions that the First World helped create and control, and it offers an active voice to indigenous people in order to build a culture of collective resistance and opposition across the Fourth World and to fight against both domestic and international oppression imposed by hegemonic Western domination. Lastly, FWAIL scholarship offers a prescient approach to the preservation of biodiversity and the natural environment necessary for the survival of human race in coming generations.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicAsian Geopolitics and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207