The Ends and The Means: Indigenous Sovereignty, Climate-Related Legal Actions, and Frameworks of Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Philosophy professor Timothy Morton uses climate change as his foremost example of what he calls a hyperobject: an object that occupies both more physical space and more time than humans can usefully comprehend. For example, one can understand local meteorological occurrences in isolation without necessarily understanding that a given storm was more severe than it should have been because an overall increase in global temperatures makes for a more aggressive, active hydrological cycle. Environmental organizations focused on raising awareness understand this. Public campaigns to wed the nebulous idea of climate change to specific, concrete images are incredibly memorable: think of a polar bear struggling to stand on a diminished iceberg. In light of climate change's unique status as a problem, it may seem more reasonable that climate change has yet to meet its ideal legal match regarding causes of action; climate change is too large and too slow-moving to be tackled by traditional schools of thought within the law. Indeed, the number of countries that have recognized a justiciable cause of action for climate change are far outweighed by countries that have not.\nClimate change activist groups often pursue multiple legal approaches and appeal to multiple levels of authority worldwide, as there are many imperfect options available. Indigenous nations, depending on the country in which they are contained, may have treaty-based or otherwise more specific causes of action available for climate-related legal actions. An examination of currently ongoing climate litigation that features Indigenous parties in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Argentina provide insight into how Indigenousspecific domestic legal approaches may shape climate-related adjudication going forward.
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 | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.144 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".