Bibliographic record
Abstract
At first glance, national sovereignty and the respect of Human Rights seem, since the first is unachievable without detriment to the second, irréconciliable. When a country binds itself through an international agreement to respect Human Rights it may still violate these accords with impunity by hiding behind the sacred principle of non-interference, a precept often invoked by other countries to justify their passivity. For the author, this pessimistic view does not, however, take into consideration the fact that evolution in the safeguards to human rights has only come about with the consent of sovereign nations. There are few countries in the world today who flagrantly disregard Human Rights without feeling the need to justify themselves. It may now be said that there is a beginning of virtue in the reality of international relations. There may certainly exist conflict between the exercice of sovereignty and the respect of Human Rights, but in democratic countries, this does not constitute an absolute paradox. It is the responsibility of the people governed to make good their rights by exerting the necessary pressure on their government when it does not have a tendency to liberalize its policies. This is because, in the end, Human Rights do not belong to the State but to the people.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".