The Role of Constitutions in the Legal Status of Indigenous Peoples (Examples of Arctic Countries)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, based on the examples of four Arctic states (Russia, the United States of America, Canada and Finland), the role of constitutions is determined and described how the basic state law forms legal systems and ensures the legal status of indigenous peoples. It is revealed that indigenous peoples are presented as a constitutional and legal phenomenon in the largest and most developed states of the world. The characteristics of indigenous peoples differ, since they are influenced by both the processes of state building and society development. According to the author, the role of the constitution is that at the level of the main law, indigenous peoples are distinguished as a special ethnic community that has political, cultural, and economic significance for the state. At the same time, the characteristics of indigenous peoples are not constant — they are significantly influenced by external conditions: political, legal, social, and economic, forming or changing them. This requires constant revision and updating of approaches to the study of indigeneity and determining the prospects for the development of indigenous peoples. Within the framework of this article, the author examines the terminology associated with indigenous peoples, enshrined at the constitutional level, and proposes to use a special term in constitutional law — “indigenism”, i.e. a set of unique characteristics that distinguish indigenous peoples from other ethnic groups, and in accordance with which these characteristics peoples are endowed with special collective and individual rights.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".