Conceptualising minimum core obligations under the right to health: How should we define and implement the ‘morality of the depths’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To prevent progressive realisation within resources from undermining both domestic and international responsibilities towards health, international human rights law institutions developed the idea that these rights hold an inviolable ‘core’ equivalent to essential health needs. Yet few aspects of this right and indeed of economic social and cultural rights have generated greater debate and unresolved questions than the core concept: Is the core fixed or moveable, non-derogable or restrictable, universal or country-specific? Is its function to guarantee specified bundles of the most essential health facilities, goods and services, or it is to require governments to act reasonably to progressively realize these minimal health entitlements? Is the concept legitimate in terms of international law? And what are acceptable methods to further develop the content of these entitlements and duties? This paper seeks to address several of these questions in light of the evolution of this concept in international law and human rights scholarship, focusing in particular on the development of core obligations in relation to the right to health.
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 | 0.036 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.124 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".