Reclaiming Humanity: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as the Cornerstone of African Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Article argues that economic, social, and cultural rights are the key\nto effectively realizing human rights in Africa. It contends that human\nrights discourse on the indivisible bundle of rights must be put into\npractice in the African context, where these rights are people's primary\nmeans of self-defense. First, the Article argues that African governments'\nfailure to enthrone enforceable socio-economic rights compromises civil\nand political rights. It then examines the inextricable link between these\nrights and development, arguing that there is no justification for\ndiscriminatory enforcement of human rights. The Article addresses\nfactors inhibiting the realization of these rights. It highlights the broad\nconsequences of the continued marginalization of socio-economic rights.\nFinally, it urges a rejection of the Western model and explores approaches\nto improve the fortunes of these rights. It concludes that selective\nenforcement of human rights in the context of worsening social, economic,\ncivil, and political conditions is a heedless truncation of humanity.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".