MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298829397 · doi:10.1017/s0069005800009358

John Peters Humphrey: Canadian Nationalist and World Government Advocate

2008· article· en· W2298829397 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Erin C. Roth

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFederalismDeclarationNationalismAlliancePolitical scienceGovernment (linguistics)Human rightsLawInternational lawPoliticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary John Peters Humphrey is best known for drafting the United NationsUniversal Declaration of Human Rights, a role that, while significant, comprised only a brief period in Humphrey’s life. Prior to his time at the UN, Humphrey was an adamant Canadian nationalist who argued for a strong, united Canada. At the same time, he was highly critical of international organization and argued for a federal, world government. This apparent contrariness was also seen in his choice of employment. Supportive of world government, Humphrey viewed the UN as little more than a “defensive alliance.” Humphrey’s paradoxical views and actions are far more coherent than they first appear. It is possible to see in them a single, unifying trend: federalism. Federalism’s layered government structure has the ability to preserve regional differences and also to connect the individual to each layer of law. At the UN, Humphrey was able to make great strides in this direction, and today several international bodies receive complaints directly from individual complainants. In this way, Humphrey helped connect the individual with international law.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0240.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0120.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit internationalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207