Enchevêtrements normatifs en contextes autochtones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce dossier examine différentes façons dont les collectifs autochtones interagissent avec les cadres légaux étatiques. Les cas examinés concernent des groupes marginalisés ou minoritaires par rapport à d’autres groupes sociaux, à l’intérieur d’un même État. En prenant des exemples puisés au Canada, au Pérou, en Inde et en Polynésie française, ce dossier sert ainsi à montrer comment les collectifs autochtones composent et interagissent avec les cadres légaux, en les manipulant, en les transformant ou en les adaptant à d’autres contextes. Ces négociations peuvent mobiliser différentes échelles de droit enchevêtrées : celles du droit étatique, du droit international et des normativités locales. Les textes présentés mettent de l’avant les perspectives des acteurs autochtones et leurs stratégies afin d’affirmer leurs traditions juridiques et leur négocier une place à l’intérieur du contexte national. This special issue examines various ways in which Indigenous collectives engage with state legal frameworks, focusing on situations where these groups are marginalized or represent a minority within a state. Drawing on examples from Canada, Peru, India, and French Polynesia, it illustrates how Indigenous collectives compose and interact with these legal frameworks, by manipulating, transforming, or adapting them to other contexts. These negotiations often involve the mobilization of different and yet entangled normative systems—state law, international law, and local normativities. The contributions to this issue emphasize Indigenous perspectives and shed light on their strategies for asserting their legal traditions while negotiating a place within existing national frameworks.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".