Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Once, not that long ago, significant tracts of land on earth were known only to the Indigenous peoples. The expansion of the European empire into the ‘new world‘ of the old homes of Indigenous peoples in lands now known as, for example, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand has brought about complex legal quandaries that remain mostly unresolved despite more than 200 years of contact. The European colonialists arrogantly assumed sovereignty of the Indigenous peoples and their lands. While some of the English-styled domestic courts recognised Indigenous peoples ‘property tenure, they did so typically only on an occupancy use-rights scale, if at all. This was often justified on the premise that the local Indigenous peoples were'savage‘ or ‘barbarian‘ and certainly had no developed legal property tenure comprehensive to the Europeans. While those early cases have now been overruled, the present legal quandary remains about how best to reconcile with Indigenous peoples who mostly have had their sovereignty and property denied. Many contemporary domestic courts, domestic legislatures, and international instruments are attempting to find palatable answers. Within this context, focus is predominantly on, for instance, lands, waters, forests, fish, and coastlines. Often not in the spotlight is relationship property. Still, the domicile question of whether the very little remaining Indigenous property should be capable of being deemed relationship property raises unique issues that deserve close attention. Where one or both of the persons in a relationship are Indigenous and hold Indigenous property, should that Indigenous property remain ring-fenced as separate property or fall into the relationship sharing pool? For example, if the family home has been built on the ancestral land of the Indigenous partner, upon divorce should the non-owning partner be able to make a claim to the home? This chapter focuses on these questions as an important component of modern family finances with particular emphasis on a once colonial country: New Zealand.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".