Legal regulation of ethno-national policies (national minorities, indigenous peoples, multiculturalism)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current situation of national minorities, indigenous peoples and the policy of multiculturalism needs to be reconsidered from a legal point of view. The purpose of the article was to investigate the legal regulation of ethnonational policy, using the experience of major democratic states. The article used various methods of scientific knowledge such as cognition. On the basis of the analysis, the legal mechanisms of ethnonational policy regulation are examined in detail through the prism of the main trends of indigenous peoples' rights. In the results, special attention was paid to the practices of multiculturalism and observance of the rights of indigenous peoples. In particular, the founding documents of the UN and the Council of Europe, individual legislative decisions of other international organizations and various national parliaments were studied. Also, using the example of the legislation of modern countries of the Balkan Peninsula, modern trends in the resolution of the rights of national minorities are indicated. The conclusions underline the prospect of using the model of autonomous communities for the legal regulation of the life of national minorities and indigenous peoples in a multicultural society.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".