Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprising 57 member states, the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the second largest intergovernmental organization in the world after the United Nations. Its membership extends from Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Middle East to Africa, Eurasia, the Balkans and South America.In 2005, OIC launched a reform program that culminated in adopting a revised Charter in 2008 replacing the Charter of 1972. The new Charter seemed to reflect an increased prominence for human rights within the OIC, and it paved the way for the establishment of the OIC’s Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC). In addition to the stipulation that IPHRC will be one of the eleven primary organs of the OIC, the new Charter expresses the OIC’s determination to “promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, good governance, rule of law, democracy and accountability”, and “safeguard and promote the rights of women and their participation in all spheres of life” in member States in accordance with domestic legislation. In addition to these transformations, OIC appear to be more willing to engage with civil society organizations on human rights. It is in this context, and the increasing need to understand the OIC, particularly its human rights mechanisms and discourse, this paper tries to have a general analysis on subject.It should be noted that for some researchers (Mayer.2015) the OIC’s record is shown to be full of confusing and even self-contradictory statements on Islam and human rights. For them, OIC is not a competent organization for promoting the Human Rights as a universal value.As our major question, the paper seeks to evaluate the index growth of human rights and their criteria in OIC. Which are the main instruments for protection of Human Rights in OIC? Has OIC been successful in promotion of Human rights in the Member States and in the world?To carry out the research, a descriptive and analytical method is selected and based on OIC documents, it will be a documented analysis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".