Competing visions of ‘the people’ in Australia: First Nations and the state
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2020 the Australian High Court decided the case of Love v. Commonwealth; Thoms v. Commonwealth, a claim of constitutional belonging by two Aboriginal men. The Court was fractured in its reasoning and conclusion, a majority deciding that ‘Aboriginal Australians’ cannot be aliens. The case sits within a longer and ongoing story regarding the interaction between First Nations peoples and the Australian settler colonial state. The reasoning of the Love/Thoms case reveals two contrasting visions of the constitutional identity of ‘the people’ – one being a plural and diverse conception potentially capable of accommodating a distinct identity of First Nations peoples, the other being a unified conception dominated by formal equality and democratic participation. A study of the Love/Thoms case in its context also speaks to broader questions of constitutional identity. First, that constitutional identity is constructed through the interaction of multiple actors. It is through an ongoing dialogic between constitutional actors that constitutional identity evolves over time. Second, that there is a relationship between the identity of ‘the people’ and of their Constitution. A study of the construction of the constitutional identity of ‘the people’ in this case reveals principal characteristics of the Australian state’s constitutionalism: going to institutional and substantive questions regarding the respective roles of the people and the Courts, equality and sovereignty.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".