MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2472771994 · doi:10.5539/mas.v10n9p94

The Convergence of Human and Citizenship Rights in the Globalization Era

2016· article· en· W2472771994 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amir Biparva, Sayed Qasem Zamani

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipHuman rightsGlobalizationPoliticsPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)Fundamental rightsSocial rightsConvergence (economics)International human rights lawLawLaw and economicsSociologyPolitical economyEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human and citizenship rights, the former refers to the individual for being a human and the latter to citizens of statesfor being members of a political community, have their own historical, social and political foundations. Therefore, any analysis about their relations should bring historical, social and legal foundations into consideration. While the content of citizenship rights can be analyzed in the context of human rights and in fact they origin from them, their relationship should be characterized based on their substantive and procedural aspects. One cannot claim the overlapping or inconsistency of these two rights just by conducting a shallow analysis. Particularly in the era of globalization and expansion of international communication, these rights have been the centerpiece of all global issues. Thus, paying attention to the relationships between these rights in both national and international levels is very important.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.060
Scholarly communication0.0120.024
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied Science→Same topicInternational Law and Human Rights→French-language works237,207→