Bibliographic record
Abstract
Holy lands are significant in many religious faiths. Their sacred character can arise from human acts of consecration of buildings, shrines, and burial sites; from miraculous events; or from the presence of revered persons. Of late, we can add places of great tragedy. Or it can inhere in sites' natural condition.' Beliefs of the latter kind are usually held by long-established peoples. In the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, these beliefs are an important part of the faiths of original inhabitants-Native Americans, Aboriginals, Maori, and First Nations, respectively. The central aim of this paper is to explain, evaluate, and compare legal protections for indigenous religions when a sacred site is found on government land in these nations. The four nations have well-established and highly effective regimes of private land ownership. When a sacred site is owned by believers, or by tribal societies associated with them, protection is either straightforward or an internal question for the tribal society. Conversely, when a site is privately owned by others, legal protection of believers' interests in the site is limited or absent. Moreover, privately owned land is more likely to have been developed in ways that are inconsistent with a continuing sacred site, while much government land remains in a relatively natural state. Hence, legal protection for an active, religious interest in land not owned by believers mostly concerns land owned by governments. In the nations under review, much land is owned by various levels of government, and all or most of the land was at one time the property of indigenous inhabitants. At the times when these governments purchased or seized the land from native peoples, traditional relig-
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".