Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article takes as its point of departure the 2022 Interim Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, entitled “Indigenous Peoples and the Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief.” The report recommends “collaborat[ing] with indigenous spiritual leaders and influencers to support conservation efforts and the sustainable development of traditional lands through a human rights-based approach.” We ask what a human-rights-based approach to the conservation and sustainable development of traditional Indigenous lands looks like. More specifically, would such an approach be in line with the worldviews of the Indigenous peoples potentially affected by such conservation or development? We consider these questions both legally and theologically. We acknowledge that the protection of human rights is better than their violation, but we also take seriously critiques of this standard human rights discourse. We argue that case studies such as Oak Flat, Lake Titicaca, and the Klamath River call us away from abstract affirmations of the human right to religious freedom and toward a rights-of-nature framework – even as we consider critiques of this framework as well. Ultimately, both Western legal discourse and Western religious studies discourse reduce Indigenous cosmologies (which are metaphysical systems) into cultural debates, thus erasing the sovereignty of Indigenous lands and peoples. A decolonizing approach therefore requires a rethinking of the sacred.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".