Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation engages with and contributes to a growing literature on procedural approaches in theorizing, monitoring and adjudicating social and economic rights, with reference to new governance literature. It analyzes a move in social and economic rights away from the generation and monitoring of substantive norms by treaty monitors, judges, and scholars, and toward processes designed to generate accountable, participatory, non-uniform, iterative responses to rights broadly conceived. The first paper explores the emphasis on new governance style proceduralism in the adjudication of these rights. The second focuses on the right to health and considers how collaborations among criminal justice, public health, and community actors can be informed by the new proceduralism in state responses to non-disclosure of HIV-status in sexual relationships. The third and final article argues that the use of new governance style proceduralism for rationalizing the distribution of publicly-funded health care resources in Canada dovetails with the emergent focus on process in human rights to open space for more meaningful human rights scrutiny. Each of the three papers concludes with a discussion of the limits of these emerging approaches.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".