Urfolks selvbestemmelse og demokratiets rolle. Institusjonalisering av rettigheter og representasjon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous politics is a result of the human rights revolution after World War II, and the mobilization by ethnic groups for recognition, equality, and influence over their own situation. In the last 30 years, the awareness of the right to self-determination has given new impetus and content to how the relationship between indigenous peoples and the state should be. As part of this deep-going change, the question of how indigenous peoples institutionalize themselves as a political community with legitimate representation has become increasingly important and challenging. This article analyzes structural constellations that define the opportunity space of modern indigenous politics, exemplified by the development trends in Canada and the Nordic countries. In analyzing this, it is crucial to understand the relationship between ethnicity, indigenous peoples, and self-determination. With this as a starting point, the important role of internationalization, state integration, territorialization and urbanization are analyzed. These dimensions lead both individually and through mutual effects in the direction of Indigenous self-determination institutions with certain main characteristics. The most important characteristics are democratically directly elected large-scale institutions where the right to vote rests heavily on individual self-identification, and in which Indigenous politics build on functional territoriality
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.028 |
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".