Indigenous Peoples and the Law: Comparative and Critical Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous Peoples and the Law provides an historical, comparative and contextual analysis of various legal and policy issues affecting Indigenous peoples. It focuses on the common law jurisdictions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, as well as relevant international law developments. Edited by Benjamin J Richardson, Shin Imai, and Kent McNeil, this collection of new essays features 13 contributors including many Indigenous scholars, drawn from around the world. The book provides a pithy overview of the subject-matter, enabling readers to appreciate the seminal issues, precedents and international legal trends of most concern to Indigenous peoples.\nThe first half of Indigenous Peoples and the Law takes an historical perspective of the principal jurisdictions, canvassing, in particular, themes of Indigenous sovereignty, status and identity, and the movement for Indigenous self-determination. It also examines these issues in an international context, including the Inter-American human rights regime and the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The second part of the book canvasses some contemporary issues and claims of Indigenous peoples, including land rights, mobility rights, community self-governance, environmental governance, alternative dispute resolution processes, the legal status of Aboriginal women and the place of Indigenous legal traditions and legal theory.\nAlthough an introductory volume designed primarily for readers without advanced understanding of Indigenous legal issues, Indigenous Peoples and the Law should also appeal to seasoned scholars, policy-makers, lawyers and others who are knowledgeable of such issues in their own jurisdiction and wish to learn more about developments in other places.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".