Bibliographic record
Abstract
On September 13, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly voted to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, a historic development more than two decades in the making. Though its genealogy is complicated, the origins of the Declaration can be traced at least to the 1982 founding of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations (WGIP) through the UN Economic and Social Council. The process was, by any measure, a slow one. Even after it was approved by the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in 1994, twelve more years passed before the then-"Draft" Declaration was adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in June 2006, a step necessary before it could be put before the General Assembly for ratification. In the end, a clear majority of member states voted for adoption of the Declaration. While eleven of those with representatives present for the vote abstained, more noteworthy was the circumstance that the only four votes cast against adoption came from settler states with large Indigenous populations: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States. Notwithstanding this, however, the Declaration is widely regarded as a watershed development signaling a qualitative change in the fraught history of relations between Indigenous peoples and states at the global level.KeywordsIndigenous PeopleInternational RelationGlobal GovernanceIndigenous WomanSettler StateThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".