MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415671527 · doi:10.1177/1037969x251389374

First Nations’ sovereignties and the Australian common law: Unfinished business for the High Court

2025· article· en· W4415671527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueAlternative Law Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNew Caledonia Indigenous Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh CourtArgument (complex analysis)PleadingEconomic JusticeFederal court

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, I propose a return to the High Court in the wake of the failure of the Voice referendum. This would enable a critical review of the common law’s treatment of First Nations’ sovereignties. I argue that, as with Mabo in 1992 regarding native title, recognition of prior First Nations’ sovereignties is available within existing common law. While case law appears unpromising, I critique judicial reasoning, identify crevices in judgments and mount an argument for pleading a justiciable case before the High Court. This proposal provides for a potential improvement in justice for First Nations Australians by recognising their sovereignties.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 venueAlternative Law JournalSame topicNew Caledonia Indigenous StudiesFrench-language works237,207