Divorce and Real Property on American Indian Reservations: Lessons for First Nations and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four case studies of American Indian nations' treatment of matrimonial real property disputes under formal tribal law, customary law, state law, and some mixtures are presented.Derivative lessons suggest that First Nations, supported by the Government of Canada, ought to develop their own rules and adjudication mechanisms to address these disputes.RÉSUMÉ Quatre études de cas sur la façon dont les nations am éridiennes traitent les disputes pour les biens im m obiliers m atrim oniaux sous la loi tribale formelle, le droit coutumier, le droit interne et quelques mélanges sont présentés.Des leçons dérivées suggèrent que les Premières nations, appuyées par le gouvernement du Canada, devraient développer leurs propres règles et méchanismes d'adjudication pour adresser ces disputes.U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Pacific Region Branch of Forestry."Indian Reservation and Rancheria Lands in California," 2000.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".