Bibliographic record
Abstract
The political rhetoric of ‘culture’ confronts us each time we open a newspaper, or turn on the television or radio. For example, in autumn 1999 international media carried the story of a treaty successfully negotiated between the Canadian Parliament and the Nisga'a people, granting the latter land, access to natural resources and self-government. In that same period, a British Airways inflight magazine carried a colour spread on the Sorbs, ‘the forgotten people’, ‘one of the smallest races in Europe’ and survivors of ‘1300 years of oppression’. The Sorbs were reported to have brought a case before the European Commission of Human Rights concerning the actions of a mining company which threatened to displace them and irreversably alter their distinctive way of life. These are just two random illustrations of a rhetoric which is specific to our times and in which culture is presented as an object of rights. In the hope of grappling with the motives and consequences of claims to culture in the language of rights, in July 1997 we organised the Sussex Workshop on Culture and Rights', in Brighton. The workshop brought together an international and interdisciplinary group of scholars (from anthropology, sociology, law, social and political theory, and feminist studies) with the aim of developing a rich and conceptually useful understanding of contemporary rights struggles. We are grateful to the participants of the workshop for their sharp but generous critical engagement and for their help in formulating meaningful questions (as much as answers) about this still underexamined conjunction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.474 | 0.207 |
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".