Making restitution work : the challenge of building sustainable governance and institutional structures in public administration
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
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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