Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
culture and moral disagreementTo this point in the book, I have generally been working within Western philosophical viewpoints, and my close focus on the nature of political authority and mechanisms by which virtually any group can pursue separation may have seemed to miss many of the issues relevant to indigenous peoples.In this chapter, I will try to show why this is not so, and will try to determine whether there is something special about indigenous peoples that entitles them to protections other groups lack.As I noted in the last chapter, if we can show compelling reasons, it seems plausible to allow some small groups opportunities for full or partial separation that cannot be allowed to all groups.In this chapter, I will argue that, at least within wealthy democratic countries like the United States and Canada, claims to cultural difference should be taken more seriously when made by indigenous peoples than by other groups.In doing so, I will have to disentangle some of the complex and ambiguous linkages between nationalist self-conceptions, cultural practices, and moral disagreement.Ultimately, I will argue that judgments about real degrees of cultural difference are persistently difficult to make and that existing states will fare best if they begin from a presumption that indigenous groups remain different in relevant ways.I will close by outlining what I take to be some broad patterns of indigenous difference and by suggesting that indigenous peoples might provide sources of creative intellectual tension for surrounding settler populations, particularly if they are allowed greater space to put their social conceptions into political practice.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.005 | 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 it