Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Jack pine ( pin gris in French) is an icon of Canadian art. It anchors the thin soil of the Canadian Shield even as it is subjected to harsh and howling winds. For some, its bent and twisted form is a sign of deformity. For others, it is a symbol of endurance. The social and human rights regimes are currently much like this Jack pine. Evaluated by some as deformed by neoliberalism, they are dismissed as incapable of promoting the values with which they were originally imbued. For others, these regimes continue to offer social resources to buffer neoliberal challenges. We see them as the equivalent of the Jack pine: through successive encounters with neoliberal institutions and actors, they have evolved, sometimes in dramatic ways, and in the process each developed new ways to anchor capacities for social resilience. The history of these regimes is important for any consideration of the neoliberal era. International human rights are a central resource for social inclusion and well-being. They promise universal and inalienable protection of individuals and groups’ dignity, key freedoms, and rights to fair treatment as well as participation. Any country's capacity to move these rights from paper to reality provides a resource for social resilience just as lack of respect for basic human rights curtails capabilities and life chances. Similarly, social rights and social protection are a fundamental resource on which people have drawn for more than a century. The direction that each regime has taken in the neoliberal era is thus essential to assessing the resources available to cope with the challenges coming from profound changes in social, economic, and political environments and in the narratives of social inclusion and recognition available to people.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".