ЕВОЛЮЦІЯ ДЕРЖАВНОЇ ПОЛІТИКИ США ЩОДО КОРІННОГО НАСЕЛЕННЯ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
dern society during long time of historical development has understood significance of ethnic cultures, which included in it. From the second half of XX century issues about rights and freedom of national minorities become a subject of active discussions in world political area. Originality of each culture makes it not only the richest source of overall knowledge about indigenous but also shows us unique experience of o-existence. In the end of XX century in countries with ethnic diversity (USA, Canada, Australia, Latin America countries) state policy strategy settled multiculturalism, which regards each ethnos as bearer of special culture, at the same time with globalism. Poliethnic countries usually deal with necessity of saving cultural legacy and implementing special ethno-cultural policy toward nations, which live there. Till the middle of XX century in USA was laid the legislative foundation for new American-Indian relations which stands on equality of rights, and nevertheless for existing problems, USA become making some steps for improving the indigenous living. Stating from the second half of XX century government of USA makes permanent steps for saving legacy of the indigenous by elaborating bills, which intends to strengthen rights of the aboriginal population and aspires to bring harmony in American-Indian relations. Nowadays traditions and customs, spiritual and material culture of USA aboriginal population rebirths and its condition needs to be guided by the government. North American Indians cultural development analysis has to be realized in context of USA ethnocultural policy, because during a long time this process was determined by exactly political factors. Such approach accords to direction of political research, seeing political science integrate methodological possibilities of numerous disciplines
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.012 |
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".