Indignities: Making a Place for Human Dignity in Modern Legal Thought
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Respect for human dignity is highly valued in our society, yet in a practical sense the concept of dignity has not been very influential in shaping our legal conventions. Rather, we think of dignity as an abstract concept that underlies our social and legal norms. A more concrete concept of dignity, from which legal rules can be generated, can be constructed within the context of tort law. The focus is on the specific area still referred to in Anglo-Canadian jurisprudence as infliction of nervous shock. Courts in the United States have long recognized emotional distress as sufficient to ground a cause of action, independent of physical harm. In recent cases involving abuse of authority, Canadian courts too have held that freedom from emotional distress is an interest that should be legally protected. However, this concept of emotional tranquility is too weak a foundation on which to expand tort law. Dignity, as a legally protected interest, is the appropriate basis for development of this area of the law,and that the next logical step is to replace the tort of intentional infliction of nervous shock with a dignity-based tort.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.142 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".