Parliament and the Human Rights Act: Can the JCHR help facilitate a culture of rights?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The United Kingdom has overcome its historic antipathy to a domestic bill of rights. Its recently adopted Human Rights Act (HRA) is distinctly different from the world's best-known rights instrument, the United States Bill of Rights. Faced with inherent doubts about the desirability of abandoning the principle of parliamentary sovereignty in favor of judicial supremacy, and with mounting international and domestic pressures to articulate rights for the purposes of constraining state actions, the United Kingdom incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law. But in so doing, it has developed an innovative approach to protecting rights. This model makes a key assumption—that rights will be protected not simply through after-the-fact evaluations by courts but by establishing opportunities and obligations for rights review by ministers, parliamentarians, and public authorities that are distinct from, and prior to, judicial review. The paper assesses the HRA's early effects on political behavior and focuses on the work of the recently created Joint Committee on Human Rights, which plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the government explains and justifies proposed legislation in terms of its consistency with rights.
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 | 0.040 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".