PRINCIPLES OF ETHNO-FEDERALISM AND RELATIONS OF AUTOCHTHONOUS PEOPLES WITH RESOURCE-EXTRACTING COMPANIES IN RUSSIA AND CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issues of the study of ethnic federations are largely connected with the discussion of the question on integrative mechanisms and stability of this kind of federalism. The presented publication looks at the problem from the other side. The issue of interrelation of the rights of the indigenous population and mining companies in the context of ethical federalism in Russia and Canada is taken as a basis. For this purpose, the regulatory framework, institutional mechanisms and the practice of resolving relevant local conflicts are being considered. The assessment of the paradigm of corporate social responsibility "social license to operate" is given also in this context. As a result, the conclusion is made about the peculiarities of the influence of ethnic federalism on the relations of indigenous population with mining companies; separate factors influencing this are identified. At the same time, in Russia and Canada, the rights of autochthonous groups in their territories are still in the process of institutionalization, both due to the very slow recognition of legal rights over the land use in the case of autochthonous communities in Canada, and due to continuing restrictions by federal authorities or legislation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".