MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6980727100

Conceptualising Native Title as an Analogous Property Right within the Anglo-Australian Land Law Paradigm

2009· article· en· W6980727100 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Library Of The Commons Repository (Indiana University) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousLand lawIndigenous rightsCustomary landNonpossessory interest in landTraditional knowledgeProperty rightsCommon lawProperty lawInternational law
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

"In the Pacific and elsewhere, indigenous property rights and interests and the associated traditional land use management systems have proved to be much more environmentally appropriate, multi faceted, and capable of survival than originally predicted. The exploitation of natural resources, especially land has seen the increased articulation by indigenous peoples in the Pacific and Southeast Asia of their fears about loss of land, and the concomitant loss of cultural identity. \n \n "Concomitant with these developments, there has been a growing recognition in common law countries such as the Philippines, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea, that when indigenous property rights are expropriated by the state, compensation must address the full range of losses born by indigenous people. To do otherwise, would expose the state to claims of discrimination counter to international expectations such as the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. \n \n "Nevertheless, the assessment of compensation for the impairment or even extinguishment of indigenous property resources has proved to be a chimera for compensation law and practice in common law countries. It is alleged in some quarters that fundamental compensation issues have stubbornly resisted resolution because of the communal nature of many indigenous rights. The alleged conceptual difficulties have often been identified as an obstacle to the assessment of fair and just compensation, and of course a hindrance to the panacea of economic development. \n \n "Importantly, this pattern is also repeated in many other Pacific and Asian states such as Taiwan, which do not have this common law heritage, but who have an identifiable indigenous minority.\nNevertheless, the notion of compensation which has evolved in common law countries paradoxically offers significant hope for the development of a methodology which permits the assessment of compensation for the losses born by indigenous people when their property resources are partially or wholly expropriated. Landmark court decisions in Canada, Australia and Malaysia have been a watershed for the development of this conceptual framework. \n \n "As a result, there has been a wide-ranging academic and professional review of land administration practices in many common law countries, especially the area of compensation. The right to just terms compensation enshrined as Constitutional guarantees has provided a guidepost for the development of a more culturally appropriate and inclusive approach to the assessment of compensation for indigenous property resources. \n \n "The paper describes continuing research work in this area, which provides hope for a fairer and more just approach to compensation for indigenous peoples in the Pacific and Asia."

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 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 categoriesnone
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 score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.175 · 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