HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY MIND: OR,CONJECTURAL SAVAGES, FICTIONAL HUMANS AND THE PERFORMANCE OF RIGHTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2004, historian Lynn Hunt published an article entitled “The 18th Century Body and the Origins of Human Rights.” Therein she argues that humanist experiences of the body that emerge with the penal reform movement of eighteenth-century Europe represent the origins ofthe concept of human rights as we know it today.Hunt’s primary concern is the emergence of a “rights possessing body” that causes a major shift in thinking around mid-century. In outlining this shift, she first illustrates how the rise in the popularity of portraiture during the latter half of the eighteenth-century functioned to“encourage the view that each person was an individual, that is, single, separate, distinctive and original” (Hunt 43). Hunt suggests that such a proliferation of “individuated bodies” lays the groundwork for a new kind of emotional experience requisite for modern human rights—a feeling of sympathy for someone else whose own autonomous body has been violated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".