MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204298094 · doi:10.1525/phr.2021.90.4.540

Review: <i>Empire and the Making of Native Title: Sovereignty, Property and Indigenous People</i>, by Bain Attwood

2021· article· en· W3204298094 on OpenAlex
Kirsten Anker

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Historical Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVietnamese History and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousIconSovereigntyEmpireColonialismHistoryCitationDownloadPolitical scienceMedia studiesPoliticsSociologyLawWorld Wide WebComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Book Review| November 01 2021 Review: Empire and the Making of Native Title: Sovereignty, Property and Indigenous People, by Bain Attwood Empire and the Making of Native Title: Sovereignty, Property and Indigenous People. By Bain Attwood. (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2020. xiv + 442 pp.) Kirsten Anker Kirsten Anker McGill University Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Pacific Historical Review (2021) 90 (4): 540–541. https://doi.org/10.1525/phr.2021.90.4.540 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Kirsten Anker; Review: Empire and the Making of Native Title: Sovereignty, Property and Indigenous People, by Bain Attwood. Pacific Historical Review 1 November 2021; 90 (4): 540–541. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/phr.2021.90.4.540 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentPacific Historical Review Search “Why do things happen the way they do?” In comparative Indigenous law and politics, this question is often asked of the fact that some colonial regimes entered treaties and others did not. Scholars frequently point to factors like the distinctive policies or legal regimes of different European powers, the influence of humanitarian or other attitudes to colonial “others,” local exigencies and incentives related to trade or military strategy, and the capacities, intentions, and existing legalities of Indigenous parties. With respect to Australia and New Zealand, both claimed for the British by Captain James Cook and overseen by the same Colonial Office, but where officials only entered into a treaty—the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi—with Maori in New Zealand, the differentials are harder to parse. In Bain Attwood’s latest book Empire and the Making of Native Title: Sovereignty, Property and Indigenous... © 2021 by the Pacific Coast Branch, American Historical Association2021 You do not currently have access to this content.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.267 · 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