MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7094532359

Review of <i>Discovering Indigenous Lands: The Doctrine of Discovery in the English Colonies</i> by Robert J. Miller, Jacinta Ruru, Larissa Behrendt, and Tracey Lindberg

2012· article· W7094532359 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2012
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousDoctrineOpposition (politics)Indigenous rightsDeclarationEleventh
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Doctrine of Discovery provides that colonizing European nations automatically acquired certain property, governmental, and commercial rights over Indigenous inhabitants. In recent years, Indigenous peoples, legal scholars, religious institutions, and nongovernmental organizations have pressed for official repudiation of the Doctrine. In 2007, the United Nations voted (over the initial opposition of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States) to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which contains several provisions that acknowledge the rights of Indigenous peoples to their lands. In 2012, the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples will devote its Eleventh Session to a study of the Doctrine of Discovery and its enduring impact.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicPrenatal Screening and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207