MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2443540435 · doi:10.2307/4065436

Advancing Safety as a Fundamental Human Right

2003· article· en· W2443540435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Garth Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth and Human Rights · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsEngineering ethicsLawPhilosophyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T he Montreal Declaration: People's Right to Safety is a timely declaration that recognizes the increasing magnitude, devastating consequences, and structural antecedents of violent injuries internationally. It provides an additional impetus for the safety-promotion sector to address the physical, psychosocial, cultural, and economic conditions that have a fundamental impact on safety, especially within low-income contexts, and to facilitate the recognition of safety as a basic human right. Moreover, the Declaration directs the promotion of safety and other sectors toward consciously tackling armed confliets, human security, and development of sustainable livelihoods throughout Africa, with specific focus on marginalized groups, minorities, women, and children. This is particularly important, given that, by 2020, wars, civil conflicts, and interpersonal violence are expected to account for a significant proportion of injury, morbidity, and mortality in Africa. ' Similar to many existing international human rightsbased documents, the Montreal Declaration raises important possibilities for coalescing the promotion of safety with a range of other human rights on common, international goals. It offers the potential to engage in universal criteria that extend beyond safety as it is embodied implicitly in civil liberties-the right to bodily integrity and the right to social stability-to generate a minimum gold standard for safety in and of itself. In this regard, the Declaration is a

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth and Human RightsSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207