Finding the cracks: How do frontline officials maneuver state institutions to advance Indigenous rights to land and environment?
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
This paper challenges the monolithic portrayal of the state as inherently ‘bad’ when it comes to implementation of Indigenous rights. Offering a comparative analysis of case studies from four continents we demonstrate examples of frontline state officials proactively advancing Indigenous rights to land and environment. Combining distinct literatures on institutional theory, we develop an analytical framework that sheds light on bureaucratic agency within state-Indigenous relations. The findings show how government organizations maintain a broadly colonial agenda, but that officials on the inside sometimes manage to advance decolonizing or otherwise supportive actions. We propose the concept of institutional braiding to describe this agency exerted by state officials in collaboration with Indigenous representatives when navigating co-existing normative orders. By examining the fraught institutional constraints faced by frontline actors, we contribute to debates on Indigenous-state relations and the prospects of reaching common ground in the contact zone between divergent ontologies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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