MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126907012 · doi:10.1017/s0008423907071387

Humanité: John Humphrey's Alternative Account of Human Rights

2007· article· en· W2126907012 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leah Bradshaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal and Social Philosophy
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsRationalityPoliticsGermanNatural lawGlobalizationSociologyPhilosophyLawPolitical scienceLaw and economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humanité: John Humphrey's Alternative Account of Human Rights , Clinton Timothy Curle, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007, pp. xi, 211. Human rights are the predominant moral discourse of the modern world, but that does not mean that they are transparent, nor does that mean that there is universal agreement even among rights advocates regarding their grounding. Rights can find their firmament in the English tradition of contracts forged out of fear (Hobbes, Locke), in the German tradition of deontological rationality (Kant), and in an earlier, premodern conception of natural law (Aquinus). What any of these accounts profess, however, is a totalistic explanation of the terms of political engagement. All rights discourse tends toward globalization and homogeneity. We know, of course, that there is much resistance to this moral discourse of rights from political entities that want to hang on to their particular histories and cultures. Objections to the globalizing and homogenizing tendencies of rights have tended to come from the formerly colonized, the dispossessed and the marginal.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.308 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicLegal and Social PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207