Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, under Sheila Watt-Cloutier's leadership, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference launched what is often described as the world's first international legal action on climate change by lodging a petition against the United States before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Inuit petition emphasized a connection between human rights and climate change, which at the time was considered unique. What is not, however, often mentioned is that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights never ruled on the substance of the complaint, rejecting the Inuit petition as inadmissible. The Commission did, however, hold what it called a ＂hearing of a general nature＂ on the issue of global warming and human rights. Thus, while the idea of ＂suing the United States＂ for its alleged contribution to climate change did not succeed, the Commission's hearing nevertheless served to give further attention to the need for a human rights-based approach to the issue of climate change, and in that sense made a notable contribution to developments in international environmental law.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".