Land Rights in Mediatized Indigenous Legal Discourse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the years 2016-2018 a number of protests conducted by the Indigenous peoples of Canada against the controversial expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline was framed in the Canadian news discourse as a conflict involving the First Nations, the federal government and the provincial government of Alberta. The dispute over pipeline regulations, environmental risks and Indigenous land rights saw First Nations peoples arguing against the government of Canada and the government of Alberta as the new expansion would further aggravate water and air pollution on Indigenous sacred lands; while the Liberal Party’s leader and PM, Justin Trudeau, had promised to make environmental assessment credible again, the government approved plans to build pipelines on lands whose ownership is still hotly contested. Based on the assumption that the media acts as a proxy for personal contact with the legal system and that legal language plays an important role in the construction, interpretation, negotiation and implementation of legal justice, the present paper intends to investigate the mediatization of Indigenous Law, i.e. the construction and dissemination of legal knowledge on Indigenous land rights in online news discourse for global consumption.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".