An Analysis of the Role of Human Dignity in the Iranian Citizens Rights Charter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>In today's societies, in which the variety of social communications are increasingly expanded, citizenship rights in relation to all citizens equally and without discrimination depends on a comprehensive charter. This charter should specifically predict citizenship rights. The citizenship Bill of Rights will only be successful in achieving its goals in case it is principally based on the human dignity. The Iranian legal system in 1392 experienced the development of the "Citizens Rights Charter". This charter, with its fundamental drawbacks, will not have a desirable impact on the Iranian legal system.<br />Apparently, human dignity enjoys a proper position in the introduction and the general rules of the Iranian Citizens Rights Charter. However, the charter's understanding of the concept of citizen and government has compromised this condition. On the one hand, considering the citizen as anonymous with the national, and granting citizenship right to the state on the other hand have compromised the the position of human dignity in the charter.<br />With respect to the instances of civil rights, human dignity does not enjoy an appropriate position too. The lack of distinction between instances of human rights and mere citizenship rights, non-implementation of instances in a comprehensive framework and the over-emphasis on counting the instances by the law, has undermined human dignity in the citizen rights context.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".