The Protective Potential of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 for Rights and Interests Guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis seeks to explore to what extent and in what ways the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“Bill of Rights Act”) protects rights and interests guaranteed to Māori under the Treaty of Waitangi. It starts with investigating the consequences of a structural difference between the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”) and the Bill of Rights Act: unlike the Charter, which directs for its application in such a way so as to not abrogate or derogate from Aboriginal interests, the Bill of Rights Act contains no equivalent instruction that contemplates protection for rights and interests guaranteed under the Treaty of Waitangi. Despite the absence, using recent Canadian jurisprudence as a comparative springboard, this thesis postulates a protective dimension is present in the Bill of Rights Act in ss 19(1), 19(2), 20 and 5, each section with its own potential and limitations.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".