MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015146791 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v2n3p100

Rosmini on Individual Rights: The Soul (Reason) as Forerunner of Individual Rights in Human Society

2009· article· en· W2015146791 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nico P. Swartz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolving Legal Systems and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoulPhilosophyDoctrineConstitutionHuman rightsHonorThouLawState (computer science)TheologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The question that can be asked today is: Of what relevance is Rosmini’s legal theory on individual rights for modern man? Rosmini’s individual rights did not appear from nowhere. From the opinions of some Greek writers, he concluded that the soul, as a result of its immortal and mobile qualities, is divine in nature and therefore serves as the origin of individual rights. Rosmini is of the opinion, unlike Thomas Aquinas, that the protection of individual rights should filter through to all levels of human existence; from the foetal stage to adult life. In contrast with the Aristotelian Thomistic hylomorphism doctrine, he believes that just like an adult, a foetus has a soul, even in its early stages, and is entitled to the protection of his/her individual rights. This is the basis of the Constitution of South Africa 108 of 1996. Owing to the innate nature of the human soul, Rosmini succeeded in postulating God as ontological framework for the individual rights of man. The description of the unique value of humans in Psalm 8:5 is striking: “For thou hast made him but little lower than God, and crownest him with glory and honor.” (American Standard Version) Man, as image bearer of God, is thus endowed with individual rights that must be recognised by all, including the state. Rosmini hereby rejects the salus rei publicae suprema lex doctrine supported by Thomas Aquinas. Rosmini argues that, if this (salus reipublicae suprema lex) doctrine were to be followed, the state would be encroaching on the individual rights of its citizens. Furthermore, he believes that the state is geared to protect the individual rights of its citizens. Rosmini thus argues that the interests of the state are best served if the interests of the citizen are first protected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.025
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicEvolving Legal Systems and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207