Bibliographic record
Abstract
自人權普遍宣言簽署迄今已逾半世紀，然而普遍人權的概念與違反人權的情事間的明顯矛盾仍然繼續存在。本文假設縮短南北國家對人權理解與實踐差距的關鍵是減少南北國家對此二者的差異。促進這種建立共識過程的一項重要途徑之一便是審慎檢視那些長此以來信守人權原則、積極參與人權機制的北方國家的經驗，藉此以獲得正反兩面的經驗。在此假設之下，本文焦點置於加拿大的經驗，並以此作為發展中國家民主化的殷鑑。如同一九九四年以後的南非政府，加拿大政府尤其是自一九八0年代中期以來在其外交政策聲明裡一直將人權與民主視為其外交政策的優先課題。然而此一加國一再強調的外交政策焦點卻不斷出現戰略與戰術選擇的爭議、明顯的不一致性以及被批評者指責為推諉與偽善。 作者指出加拿大人權外交的三項主要特徵為：特別偏好多邊主義（multilateralism）、強調靜默外交（quiet diplomacy）與建設性交往（constructive engagement）以及強化國家與社會的互動。此一個案研究的結果中唯一可以確定的是這三項特徵將仍然會是此一問題相關政治的特徵。若想要儘可能地擴大此三者強化加拿大在國際上人權表現的一致性與有效性的好處就必須深切瞭解此三者的力量與限制、巧妙地運用此三者所具有的各種可能性以及認知到有時此三者可能會出現反效果，若出現反效果就應做罷。同時也必須認知到的是:即使像加拿大這樣相當有經驗、富有與安全的國家對國際人權的發展影響仍然有限，而且絕難完全逃脫偽善與矛盾的責難。有此認知始堪稱是坦白而有建設性國際人權對話的開始。
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".