THREE The limits of ownership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most sweeping potential challenge to the current political shape of countries like the United States and Canada is that posed by unextinguished indigenous ownership rights.If such rights exist, and if ownership is strongly linked to political authority, the implications seem profound: countries like the United States and Canada may have to return a great deal of territory and its accompanying authority to indigenous political collectives and thereafter allow these groups to pursue whatever future seems best to them.For some defenders of indigenous rights, this kind of thoroughgoing reconstruction is exactly what morality requires.Ward Churchill (1999, 382-91; cf.Alfred 1999, 120), 1 for example, has argued that the United States is morally bound to return territories equivalent to all lands acquired without treaties to American Indian nations, and then to allow these returned lands to form the new political territories of any groups that desire full independence.This is far from a trivial amount of territory, as the source Churchill draws upon makes clear: "From the close of the American Revolution to 1900, the United States took possession of more than two billion acres of land claimed by indigenous tribes and nations.Half this area was purchased by treaty or agreement. . . .Another 325,000,000 acres, chiefly in the Great Basin area, were confiscated unilaterally by Act of Congress or Executive Order, without compensation.An estimated 350,000,000 acres in the contiguous forty-eight States, and most of the State of Alaska's 375,000,000 acres, were claimed by the United States without agreement
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".