Bibliographic record
Abstract
On Dec. 10, 2008, the international community celebrated the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR is championed as recognition around the world of ideals that U.N. member nations strive to achieve. But the UDHR is paradoxically neither universally recognized nor universally accepted. A specific reaction arising from the formation of the UDHR is the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) on August 5, 1990. Members of the CDHRI felt that this statement better encapsulated their notion of basic human rights, especially as defined by shari’ah law. In the Western world shari’ah is often associated with a negative connotation, especially in relation to women’s rights. These same critiques have been directed to the CDHRI. At the same time, shari’ah is taking a more central position in the world stage, both for Western countries with domestic minorities of Muslims, and in Muslim majority countries. This paper will review whether the CDHRI and shari’ah can address areas of concern and meet standards in the UDHR within the legal framework. The enormous flexibility afforded to Shari’ah does allow the gap between common practices as human rights ideals to be closed, and in some instances Shari’ah continues to provide more rights to women than in the Christian tradition or UDHR.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".