Making restitution work : the challenge of building sustainable governance and institutional structures in public administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada and New Zealand are recognised as leaders in implementing \nrestitution programmes. Both countries saw fundamental changes in \ngovernment policy shaped by the 1973 Calder decision and the Treaty of \nWaitangi Act, 1975. These changes in policy-making commenced from views that \ncontested indigenous land claims and resources towards a two-way communication \nin which negotiations between communities became the key to success. The \nevolving agreements moved governments towards the stance that the settlement \nof claims are not so much a cost as it is a vehicle for addressing indigenous socioeconomic \ncircumstances. Negotiated agreements set out to reflect the emergence \nof an economic development policy objective that emphasised traditional rights. \nThe article highlights issues and trends that shape options for public \nadministration in the development of governance structures that must be taken \ninto consideration during the planning and design of restitution programmes in \nrural, peri-urban and urban areas. Creating sustainable post-settlement support \nfor restitution is a major task as outcomes in the local sphere are interwoven \nwith rights to land and resources that co-exist with the traditional and broader \ncommunal management systems. Public administrators are thus faced with \nmajor challenges in matching the needs of local government with that of rural \ndevelopment. At the core of restitution lie communication, entrepreneurship and \nbusiness development, each a critical element in finding sustainable pathways to \nmeet the needs of communities and improve the quality of their lives. \nFor this reason the article explores development objectives and the processes \ninvolved in attaining social advancement.
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 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.108 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".