MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7067712614

Networking for Indigenous Rights: Evolving Relationships between Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Civil Society Organizations

2024· article· en· W7067712614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMagnetic Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousCivil societyIndigenous rightsHuman rightsThematic analysisSocial movement
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The establishment of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, the UN General Assembly’s adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and non-Indigenous support of Indigenous-led social movements in the 2010s have introduced new dynamics to the ways Indigenous rights civil society organizations (CSOs) conduct advocacy. Much of the literature on Indigenous advocacy focuses on CSO relationships prior to the Permanent Forum’s first meeting in 2002, and on the impact of subsequent developments on the relationships of Indigenous nations, CSOs, and activists with state actors. While this literature outlines methods for Indigenous peoples to utilize in their interactions with states, Indigenous peoples historically face obstacles within transnational advocacy networks, and their relationships with CSOs affect the efficacy and outcomes of their advocacy. There is a gap in the literature dealing with how these recent developments affected relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous CSOs associated with the global Indigenous rights movement, and what these new realities mean for Indigenous rights advocacy. Drawing on literature on transnational advocacy networks, Indigenous activism, and movement framing, this dissertation asks: How have relationships, interactions, and shared goals between Indigenous and non-Indigenous CSOs connected to the global Indigenous rights movement developed and changed following the creation of the Permanent Forum and the passage of UNDRIP? Using thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with volunteers and staff of Indigenous and non-Indigenous CSOs associated with the global Indigenous rights movement, this study examines evolutions in the mutual understanding, collaboration, communication, resource sharing, and power dynamics between Indigenous and non-Indigenous CSOs over the past twenty-two years. The findings of this research demonstrate that Indigenous CSOs across contexts experienced increases in support and/or awareness in recent years, maintained independence in their messaging, and encountered persistent issues related to the essentialization of Indigenous identity amongst non-Indigenous audiences. Regional variation between Asian and CANZUS country CSOs (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States) occurred in the levels of optimism for sustaining non-Indigenous support, the usage of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in advocacy efforts, and trends in partnerships across CSO types. Ultimately, UNDRIP has provided a set of rights for organizations to point towards, but it did not change the dynamics within Indigenous rights networks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University)Same topicMagnetic Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207