Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human rights education, in North America, is still developing and perhaps only in its adolescence. This is, on the one hand, quite shocking, given the foundational role such rights (supposedly) play in the core societal structures of the United States and Canada. On the other hand, the human rights movement has exploded world-wide since 1945 – rendering it in many ways a new normative world – and it is hard to think of other countries obviously doing better. To enable readers to draw comparative and intrinsic lessons, this paper examines both the form and content of human rights education in North America. The form section focuses on the modalities and availabilities of such education. The content section, by contrast, focuses on some of the "hot topics" and prominent dilemmas in contemporary North American human rights education. Emphasis is there placed on taking a principled, consistent stand in light of these latest controversies and challenges. In other words, and owing to the author’s nature as a philosopher, the content section will feature arguments highlighting the strength of a certain way of viewing and teaching human rights in the face of doubts about them and challenges to them.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".