Nature vs. Nurture: Systems of Property Rights in First Peoples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Why did the Western Apache and Zuni allow individuals to own land, the Tzeltal only permit household ownership, the Yucatec Mayo allow private ownership of all property except land which was maintained as communal, and the Seri reserve all land for the Chief? The object of this paper is to motivate and test a hypothesis of property rights formation across North and South American Indian communities. \n \n "Alternative theses vary on 1. the source of differences between groups (nature vs. nurture); 2. what motivates behaviour (group or individual welfare); 3. do the same behavioral assertions apply to groups over time. Primarily this research tests implications from rational economic behaviour in early communities (which does not preclude cooperation or charity). Rather than innate differences, constraints imposed by physical environment and level of technology determined such factors as food sources, nomadic behavior, and warring tendencies. Likewise, some mix of private and common property rights emerged because of these constraints and the nature of property (real or incorporeal, movable or fixed), with rules governing who within the community could own property, and extent of rights for inheriting or transferring property."
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".