THE HUMAN RIGHTS FACE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) IN MEXICO: HOW FAIR IS THE REALITY?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Historical socio-economic factors together with an inefficient judicial system, non-autonomous, non-accountable public human rights institutions are some of the problems nullifying the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action. Formally, contemporary Mexico is a global human rights player with respect to human rights instruments promoting equality, dignity, respect and protection of human rights and the rule of law, but the gap between reality and the so called goals and statements of the government remains significant. In December, 2003, the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights presented the Mexican government with an analysis of the human rights situation in Mexico to serve as a road map for government policy on human rights issues, as well as issues concerning the judiciary and information and communication technologies (ICT). The digital gap goes hand in hand with the phenomenon of poverty in which individuals live in conditions of vulnerability, insecurity, discrimination, with no possibility of exercising their civil and political rights. The opportunities provided by ICT tools are still in the hands of the privileged whose main interest is financial gain. Capacity building and ICT literacy are pertinent. The discrepancy between the governmental programs to bridge the digital divide and the results in indicators for accessing ICTs is clear. The government’s most ambitious project, which aims to connect citizens to the information society, needs to be re-thought, or it will continue to fail. A legal data protection framework for the private sector is still in being developed. Some universities and the Senate have done analyses of ICTs in relation to the Tunisia 2005 WSIS meeting, but there seems to be only political marketing and no effective governmental interest in implementing the WSIS Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".