Comment on Rights and Value: The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Addresses the Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
established to monitor States ’ compliance under the same, we commented that: The IcEScr does not address environmental concerns for their own sake. For that reason, the EScr committee cannot make broad statements of law or policy on environmental issues but can only address the environment from a strict anthropocentric perspective. In other words, under the IcEScr, the environment has no intrinsic value, but is only valuable to the extent that it maintains or improves humans ’ abilities to enjoy their economic, social, and cultural rights. As a result, the committee has no self-standing general comment on the environment or the need for the development required to fulfil economic, social, and cultural rights to be “sustainable. ” (Baruchello & Johnstone, 2011, p. 110) The EScr committee has not entirely neglected the environment, as we demonstrated with reference to a number of general comments on housing, health, water, food and education (p. 112), but had not at the time of publication made any statement dedicated to the environment on which humans rely to satisfy their economic, social and cultural rights and the relationship between human rights and environmental concerns. This changed in 2012 when the committee took the opportunity of the rio +20 summit to issue the “Statement in the context of the rio+20 conference on ‘the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication’ ” (EScr committee, 2012). This statement was part of a loose
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 | 0.038 | 0.199 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.284 | 0.165 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.021 |
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".