Submission to Inquiry into the Application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples (Submission 33)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is presently little evidence in Australia of enactment of UNDRIP principles at the Commonwealth level. 2. There is some evidence of UNDRIP principles at the State level through diverse means. 3. UNDRIP principles contain well-established and desirable legal mechanisms for expression of First Nations’ peoples’ ongoing aspirations for self-determination. 4. There are three feasible means for enactment by the Commonwealth of UNDRIP principles: interpretive provisions; a Human Rights Act specifically enumerating the principles; embedding principles of self-determination and free, prior and informed consent into specific legislation (eg Native Title Act 1993 (Cth)). 5. Given the effect of the Constitution, a Commonwealth Human Rights Act will likely affect the operation of State legislation to the extent of any inconsistency. 6. There are many examples of legislative programs in need of urgent revision in light of UNDRIP principles, including: Northern Territory Intervention, Cashless Welfare Card, native title, heritage legislation and the Migration Act (following Love, Thoms v The Commonwealth) 7. There are various models that would be instructive for the Commonwealth in enacting UNDRIP principles including the framework in Canada, the treaty process in Victoria, Uluru Statement from the Heart, the Coalition of Peaks Closing the Gap Agreement, and the South West Settlement. 8. Implementation requires close attention to the ongoing effects of colonisation, but will benefit also from revisiting the recommendations of multiple Royal Commissions and Inquiries addressing diverse priority matters.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.012 |
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".