Rights of the Indigenous Peoples to Self-Government: A Comparative Analysis between New Zealand and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and New Zealand are the western liberal democracies settled by a predominantly English-speaking majority. Their legal and constitutional system depends on English common law. Both Canada and New Zealand have a high percentage of indigenous peoples irrespective of the 4% difference in Canada and 15% in New Zealand. Both states rank high in global comparisons of human development. There exist many differences in the rights of self-government of indigenous peoples in both Canada and New Zealand. These distinctions in the application of the self- government right in local and regional level greatly impacts how indigenous peoples put self- government into practice and brings forth significant questions about which version of these applications best serves the interests of indigenous peoples. This is a comparative study that expounds the differences between constitutions of both countries together with the distinctions in the rights of self-government of indigenous peoples. By using the legal combative method to compare constitutions of Canada and New Zealand and their policies regarding rights of self-government of indigenous peoples, this study concludes that with respect to clear constitutional and legislative recognition of the right of self -government Canada is more advanced. Additionally, this study points out significant institutional work differences between indigenous peoples’ self-government rights in both countries. Keywords- Canada; Indigenous peoples; indigenous rights; Native; New Zealand; Self-government.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".