The Rights of Minorities in International Law
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today human right is of great importance. The existence of different minorities such as lingual, ethnic, racial, and religious minorities with different tendencies derived from different civilizations and cultures has brought about social and cultural varieties and differences in each country and also the emergence of this variety has resulted in the development of variety in a specific culture and ceremony in different countries. On the other hand, each country as a member of international society has to observe norms and principles accepted by international society. In other words, although preparation of constitution of each country depends on exclusive qualification of the country’s people and government, it does not mean they are free in each law because international legitimacy of each country’s government and constitution depends on observation of the accepted principles and the governing rules in international law. The subject of minorities was first introduced in Vienna Congress and today different minorities live in different countries. In international documents and treaties, a precise definition of minority has not been provided. The present article seeks to interpret minority rights according to international law and investigate minority rights in international law by using international documents.
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.
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 it