The Principle International Human Rights Instruments to Which Canada Has Not Yet Acceded
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Canada is perceived internationally as an ardent defender of human rights and promoter of democratic values, this article reveals that Canada has yet to ratify 29 treaties relating to human rights. The Author critically examines the motives underlying the Canadian government's refusal to ratify each of these international human rights instruments by dividing the treaties into three main categories: instruments for which motives are unknown; instruments for which ratification no longer seems relevant; and instruments for which ratification remains under consideration. While the author recognizes that the refusal to ratify some treaties is appropriate, she nevertheless emphasizes that in many cases, the Canadian government has either not provided a comprehensive justification for refusing to adhere to a convention, or is unable to move beyond unending negotiations with provincial and territorial governments. The article emphasizes that the treaty ratification process, as it applies to human rights instruments, falls short of establishing a meaningful and thorough public policy process. Accordingly, the author suggests that change must be made to ratification policies and processes to allow for a transparent, accountable and effective examination and approval of human rights treaties.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| 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".