Bibliographic record
Abstract
The event attracted academic and legal experts from several countries, as well as representatives of some of the most relevant international institutions, such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).I am honoured to have been invited by Christoph to write a foreword for the book that continues the scholarly work that was launched at that conference in a beautiful city in the Swiss mountains.In my own academic and professional career I have had to confront many of the issues that now concern the researchers, but in no sense can I profess to be an expert in the particular spheres of study that were addressed at the workshop and that are the subject of analysis in this book.The following observations are therefore offered for what they may be worth.As the nations of the world move into the twenty-first century, there is evidence that the interests of indigenous peoples are receiving increasing attention and concern from legislators and policy-makers.The contents of this book focus upon the particular interests that are subject to international trade and market concern and regulation.An accompanying development is the emergence of international standards that aim to define minimum standards to be followed by states in their relations with indigenous peoples.A third and critically important development has been the participation of indigenous peoples' representatives in the process of identifying their particular interests and articulating their significance to governmental and non-governmental bodies both at the state level and at the international level, a development that has contributed significantly to the first two developments.The reconciliation of the conflicting legitimate interests at stake in these developments, that is the interests of the indigenous peoples on the one hand and the interests of other parties which are mediated by state and international institutions on the other hand, requires the design and creation of processes or institutions that have the capacity to effect a reconciliation that is just, legitimate and workable.The advantages of a transdisciplinary cooperative methodology are applied by the various authors as they address questions the answers to which promise a material contribution to historic developments that engage some of the most arcane aspects of law and international relations and some of the most humanly significant aspects of the life of indigenous peoples.xvii
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.540 | 0.426 |
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".