The Potential Implications of United Nations Declarations on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP): A Case Study of the Tsilhqot'in Nation and the Indigenous People of Biafra
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) and its implications for resolving Indigenous issues. This thesis focuses on Aboriginal title issues in British Columbia and the self-determination issues in Nigeria to consider the application of UNDRIP in different political and geographic contexts. It is important to look at both jurisdictions because of the historical similarities they share as well as the distinctions between them. Each nation has a particular history and experience with British colonization that has shaped how they interact with Indigenous nations. Yet Canada and Nigeria have responded differently to their own colonial histories. Interestingly, in 1969, Canada sent aid to provide food for the Biafrans in Nigeria during the Nigerian Civil War of 1967 – 1970. The incident will be discussed in-depth in this thesis. Furthermore, in this thesis, I argue that the application of UNDRIP can enable for the elimination of the aboriginal title test to which Indigenous peoples in Canada are subjected in Canadian courts. I argue that the courts should apply UNDRIP principles in resolving aboriginal title claims. I also argue that Nigeria should adopt and implement UNDRIP to enable the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to exercise their right to self-determination. UNDRIP provides a form of recognition for Indigenous nations that leaves state territorial integrity in place. As such, IPOB exercise of the right to self-determination will not threaten Nigeria’s territorial integrity in accord with article 46 of UNDRIP.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.044 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| 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".