When participation is not enough: explaining factors for (not) changing Indigenous land claims recognition policy in Brazil and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
the paper compares Indigenous participation in Indigenous land claims recognition policy review processes in Brazil and Canada. Firstly, we deal with the 2016’s 1st National Public Policy Conference on Indigenous Policy. Secondly, we analysed the Canadian Task Force to review the Land Claims Policy of the country in 1985. Whereas the first participatory institution did not have any significative impact regarding Indigenous proposals to change the referred policy, the Canadian one had a modest success. Our main goal was to understand the reasons behind the variation on the observed capacity of policy change through participatory channels. We listed as potential explaining factors, beyond the institutional ones, the federalist arrangement in each country, the executive agenda and the collective agency of Indigenous peoples. We interviewed 16 public officials and carried out documental research in both countries. We concluded that, among other factors, the Ruralist Caucus is the political actor with veto powers capable of blocking Indigenous claims in the Brazilian case; in Canada, on the other hand, Indigenous issues have bipartisan consensus, which makes proposals for policy change less contentious and more feasible.
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 | 0.013 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".