What are the Underlying Factors for the Poor Implementation of the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent Principle in Australia, Canada, and the United States? : A Qualitative Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been 15 years since the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognized the Free, Prior and Informed consent Principle, yet it has not been able to function to its fullest potential. This Thesis aims to carry out a Qualitative Comparative Analysis of the following three countries of Australia, Canada, and the United States. With the hypothesis, that the underlying factors behind this failure can be attributed to Settler-Colonialism and Global Capitalism. To carry out this study Theoretical Frameworks based on Settler-Colonial studies and a critique of the Stakeholder theory named Critical Stakeholder Analysis (CSA) will be employed. Using the existing body of research in this area of inquiry as a point of departure, this thesis attributes the failure to implement the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent principle to its fullest potential on asymmetrical power dynamics, settler-colonial structures, and profitability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".