MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1551604073 · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139235600.016

Constitutional Environmental Human Rights: A Descriptive Analysis of 142 National Constitutions

2013· book-chapter· en· W1551604073 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Jeffords

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsEnvironmentalismDeclarationPolitical scienceRights of NatureEnvironmental lawInternational human rights lawFundamental rightsCharterLawLaw and economicsRight to propertyEnvironmental ethicsSociologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Environmental human rights, succinctly defined as entitlements to clean air, water, and soil for present and future generations (Hiskes 2009), have both conceptual and legal foundations (Sax 1990). These rights fit within the basic rights framework outlined by Shue (1996), most notably subsistence rights. Without clean air, water, and soil, humans will be unable to enjoy other rights and life activities (Collins-Chobanian 2000). Because pollution does not respect geographic and, especially, temporal borders, environmental human rights necessitate a deeper concern for the rights of future generations. Recognizing these unique characteristics of environmental degradation, the first principle of The Stockholm Declaration of 1972 notes the responsibility humans have to protect the environment for both present and future generations. Although its signatories are not legally bound to uphold its principles, much of the language of the declaration forms the basis for modern binding and nonbinding instruments and declarations concerning the environment including, but not limited to, The African Charter of Human and People's Rights, the Brundtland Report, and the Ksentini Report (Hiskes 2011). Given these foundations, environmental human rights impose specific duties and obligations on governments, and have vast implications for government efforts to respect, protect, and fulfill said rights, including the nature of interference and definition of rights violations. Governments seem to take these obligations seriously, as the world has seen a significant increase in the number of multinational and bilateral treaties and declarations concerned with recognizing a human right to a safe, healthy, or clean environment (Herz 2000; Hiskes 2011). This is also true for the human right to water (Scanlon, Cassar, and Nemes 1999). However, the question remains to what extent governments are trying to formalize and institutionalize these rights in national policy and law. Evidence of government effort can be found by looking closely at national constitutions, the topic of this chapter.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207