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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2008, I lodged a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal in regard to problem gambling and its negative impacts on Māori people. The Tribunal is tasked with hearing grievances related to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (The Treaty of Waitangi) signed in 1840 between Māori and the British Crown. It is a historical claim focused on the lack of adequate protection of taiohi Māori (young people of Māori descent) and the intergenerational harm caused by problem gambling among their whānau, hapū, iwi (extended families and relatives) and urban Māori communities. However, this begs the question how can a Treaty claim improve the health outcomes of a generation of taiohi Māori who have been exposed to commercial gambling and its aggressive and targeted expansion and marketing? This paper frames the WAI-1909 claim as a Kaupapa Māori (Māori research approach) derived from the research of three wahine toa (warrior women) supporting the claim; and refers to epistemological standpoints of Māori women working in the gambling research space. I demonstrate how the gambling claim challenges the New Zealand government to honour the promises in the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to protect the rights of its citizens, especially taiohi Māori. The WAI-1909 gambling claim concludes that whilst the New Zealand Gambling Act (2003) includes a public health approach to problem gambling, it has not adequately addressed the rights of tangata whenua (Māori, the first people of Aotearoa/New Zealand) under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it