Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Human Rights Act 1998 of the United Kingdom is the latest in a wave of legislative and constitutional instruments that have been passed in a number of countries (including Canada, New Zealand and South Africa) and which put human rights at the top of the public law agenda. For the most part, these instruments are widely welcomed by senior judges and by academic and practising lawyers, many of whom will have campaigned for their introduction. There are, however, very considerable doubts about the wisdom of these developments within the democratic tradition of government which remain unanswered. This book endorses the importance of human rights within any democratic system of government, but questions whether the primary responsibility for the articulation of these rights ought to be taken away from the normal political processes of representative government; it also considers the constitutional implications of doing so. Specifically, the extensive shift of political authority to the judiciary which is involved in the British Human Rights Act is critically examined and other ways of specifying and promoting human rights in more democratic forums are considered. Particular attention is paid to the priority which should be given to economic and social rights within the new constitutional settlement. Overseas contributions, ranging from Eastern Europe to South Africa, via North America and Australasia, illustrate the pitfalls of importing other constitutional models.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".