MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050742697 · doi:10.1080/14754835.2010.501262

Hannah Arendt's “Right to Have Rights”: A Philosophical Context for Human Security

2010· article· en· W2050742697 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Rights · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHannah Arendt's Political Philosophy
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPopularityFoundation (evidence)Political scienceContext (archaeology)SociologyHuman securityEnvironmental ethicsLawEpistemologyLaw and economicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contemporary international legal theorists and policymakers have endorsed the concept of “human security” in an effort to mitigate the same categories of suffering that Hannah Arendt sought to address with her concept of a “right to have rights.” Like Arendt, human security theorists and practitioners today focus on the plight of individuals in distress as a consequence of the unrealizability in practice of their human rights. But despite the popularity of the goal of human security, the content of this concept remains unsettled. This article argues that Arendt's notion of a right to have rights offers important insights to those who wish to develop the idea of human security in a way that primarily serves humanitarian, rather than strategic, goals, and who seek an interculturally legitimizable basis for human rights, rather than a conventionally universalist foundation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.326 · 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