Tilvenningen til samisk kultur og rettstenking i\nnorsk høyesterettspraksis. \nOm møtet mellom en muntlig og en tekstbasert rettskultur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A major problem for all indigenous peoples who live under the legal rule of a majority population\nis that their legal culture is often based on oral traditions, which suffer because of the text-based\nlegal culture of the majority population. After a brief historic review of the relations between the\nSaami and the Norwegians, the author discusses the significance of Saami customary law and\nother elements of Saami legal thinking. The author discusses whether traditional elements from\nSaami culture could be of relevance in future court cases by analyzing the use of analogous material\nin a ruling from the Canadian Supreme Court. In the main part of the article, the author discusses\nwhether or not important rulings from the Norwegian Supreme Court concerning the Saami\nhave taken Saami legal thinking in consideration. The author concludes that the recent Supreme\nCourt rulings in the Selbu and Svartskog cases mark a new age for the significance of Saami legal\nthinking, and their cultural heritage.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.007 |
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".