ON THE ISSUE OF MAINTAINING A LIST OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF CANADA AND RUSSIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
В данной статье на основе канадского опыта ведения индейского реестра рассматриваются теоретические вопросы, которые могут возникнуть в процессе ведения списка коренных малочисленных народов Российской Федерации. Российская Федерация и Канада гарантируют проживающим на их территориях аборигенам особые, отличительные права, которые как связаны с традиционным образом жизни, так и не связаны с ними. Справедливо, что такими специальными правами должны пользоваться лица, имеющие на это законное право. Поэтому, в целях свободной реализации такими лицами своих прав Россия и Канада приняли законы, предусматривающие письменный учет аборигенов. Такое решение является одним из выходов из ситуации, сложившейся по вопросу доказывания принадлежности лица к этническим общностям, имеющим право на осуществление предусмотренных законодательством прав. In this article, based on the Canadian experience of maintaining the Indian register, the theoretical issues that may arise in the process of maintaining the list of indigenous small-numbered peoples of the Russian Federation are considered. The Russian Federation and Canada guarantee the indigenous people living in their territories special, distinctive rights that are both related to the traditional way of life and are not related to them. It is true that such special rights should be enjoyed by persons who have a legitimate right to do so. Therefore, in order for such persons to freely exercise their rights, Russia and Canada developed laws providing for the written registration of indigenous people. Such a decision is one of the ways out of the situation that has developed on the issue of proving that a person belongs to ethnic communities that have the right to exercise the rights provided by law.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".