MODELS OF INVOLVEMENT OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN POLITICAL DECISION MAKING PROCESSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article examines the experience of democratic countries in involving indigenous peoples in political decision-making processes. Since many indigenous peoples were subjected to discriminatory policies in the past, they had little chance to be heard. The article explores how countries and the global community have come to recognize the rights of indigenous peoples, including their political rights, and what models of inclusion of indigenous peoples in politics have become most popular in various democratic countries, specifically in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. The aim of the study is to examine the features of the models by which indigenous peoples are involved in political decision-making processes in democratic countries and to identify the factors influencing the choice of these models. The conclusion is that the most popular such models include the allocation of quotas in government bodies, creation of representative and consultative bodies, consultations with government agencies, as well as granting them territorial and non-territorial autonomy. It is emphasized that even in democratic countries, indigenous peoples still face difficulties in influencing politics and that the creation of special models is not always a guarantee of their full participation in political decision-making processes. One of the obstacles, in particular, is the persistence of discriminatory practices at some level towards indigenous peoples, which require resolution at the level of state policy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".