Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Modern state boundaries often cut through territories currently or formerly occupied by indigenous peoples. In many cases, the unmitigated application of laws on movement across the border can interfere with the rights and way of life of an indigenous group. This paper considers recent legal developments in Canada and Norway concerning cross-border rights and claims. It highlights conflicts that have emerged between constitutional principles that are regarded as fundamental within the state and norms drawn from international law, and in particular the norms set by United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We focus on the constitutional jurisprudence on cross-border rights of indigenous peoples in Norway, and draw on the Canadian law as a means of demonstrating that the Norwegian approach is unduly restrictive. This, we argue, is primarily due to the preference of the Norwegian court for a paternalistic model of indigenous claims. We contrast this with the recent jurisprudence from the Canadian Supreme Court on cross-border claims, where the reasoning is closer to a model that gives priority to the recognition of indigenous rights, as required under the UN Declaration. The final section returns to Norway, to consider the impact of the European Convention on Human Rights (‘echr’) to Sami rights. The leading case is under review by the European Court of Human Rights, and accordingly the article asks whether the paternalist model will withstand the closer scrutiny against human rights standards.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".