Indigenous Rights Wronged: Extinguishing Native Title\nin New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article is an account of a recent controversy in New Zealand regarding the common law native title rights of indigenous Maori people to a possible title in certain areas of the foreshore and seabed. In overturning its own precedent the New Zealand Court of Appeal had opened the door to such claims. However, the legislature, overwhelmingly supported by the majority non-Maori population, moved quickly to extinguish the inchoate rights with no guarantee of fair compensation. The lack of any constitutional protection ofcivil and political rights, and the absence of alternative institutional checks and balances, allowed the legislation to proceed unimpeded notwithstanding vigorous protests from Maori and from the Waitangi Tribunal whose mandate relates to the treaty rights of New Zealand's indigenous Maori minority. The fragility of civil and political rights in New Zealand has been articulated elsewhere, and the narrative outlined here presents a near-perfect instance of an inadequate rights regime facilitating an iniquitous outcome for a disempowered minority. It is a fairly straightforward tale of rights abuse and an exemplary study of the importance of constitutional protection of certain rights, in this case discrimination on grounds of race, against hostile majorities even in a modern liberal democracy. Both the native title jurisprudence and rights issues are imbued with the Canadian experience but lie in (sometimes dramatic) counterpoint to it.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".