Perlakuan Terhadap Anak-Anak Indigenous People Dan Tanggung Jawab Negara
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Indigenous peoples continue to face threats to their sovereignty, the sovereignty that is meant is centered on how the state positions indigenous peoples into national policies, by imposing values on indigenous peoples.Purposes of the Research: To examine and find out whether the treatment of Indigenous People's children in Canada violates the provisions of International Law and to find out how the state's responsibility for the human rights of Indigenous People's children is. Methods of the Research: This research is a normative juridical law research, with primary and secondary legal materials as a source of law by using the nature of prescriptive research that aims to obtain suggestions on what to do.Results of the Research: The results of the study show that the treatment of children of indigenous people in Canada violates the provisions of international law, where indigenous children receive treatment from the state in the form of violence or coercion which is contrary to human rights and fundamental freedoms regulated in the ILO (International Labor Organization) Conventions. UNDRIP Declaration (United Nation Declaration of Rights on the Indigenous Peoples), United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, then on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and also to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".