DISCOVERING THE DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The doctrine of discovery is a concept in crisis. A principle of public international law associated with the so-called Age of Discovery, the doctrine of discovery is commonly said to have authorized European nations to claim the lands of indigenous peoples and establish settlements on the basis of “discovery” alone. Today, with good reason, the doctrine is widely condemned. The United Nations has denounced it as “the very foundation of genocide.” Describing its manifest injustices against indigenous cultures, dominion, and sovereignty as “devastating, far-reaching and intergenerational,” the UN Economic and Social Council has called for the doctrine to be categorically repudiated and its ongoing effects redressed. Many nation-specific organizations agree. The American Indian Law Alliance cites the doctrine of discovery as the theoretical undergirding for centuries of European land theft worldwide, the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the origin of the Atlantic slave trade.5 In 2015, the Canadian Truth and Reconciliation Commission called for its repudiation, asserting that it fraudulently legitimized European sovereignty over indigenous peoples and their lands. Criticism of the doctrine has been especially pronounced within twenty-first century Christian . . .
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".