MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414531954 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/u7x5y_v1

Safeguarding Sovereignty: Border Security and Native American Tribes

2025· article· en· W4414531954 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rhett Anderson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCross-Border Cooperation and Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSafeguardingSovereigntyPoliticsHuman rightsLaw enforcementSecurity studiesLegislatureHonor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores the intricate security challenges associated with the U.S.–Canada Northern Border, particularly in relation to Indigenous nations whose territories and communities extend across both nations. The intersections of Indigenous sovereignty, cultural continuity, and cross-border rights with national and international security issues, such as human trafficking, smuggling, political overreach, and environmental stewardship, are examined. Historical agreements like the Jay Treaty, along with the differing recognition frameworks in the U.S. and Canada, influence the legal and political circumstances that Indigenous communities encounter today. Special emphasis is placed on the disproportionate effects of the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW) crisis, the exploitation of tribal lands by transnational criminal organizations, and how economic and political conflicts heighten vulnerabilities. The paper contends that effective security at the Northern Border necessitates collaborative strategies that honor Indigenous sovereignty while tackling common security threats. Suggested actions include enhancing cross-border cooperation, broadening culturally sensitive law enforcement training, improving communication between agencies, and creating legislative frameworks that involve Indigenous leadership in border management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.389 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCross-Border Cooperation and IntegrationFrench-language works237,207