PRAXIS AND THE INTERNATIONAL (HUMAN RIGHTS) LAW SCHOLAR: TOWARD THE INTENSIFICATION OF TWAILIAN DRAMATURGY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article critically reflects on the role of the TWAILian international (human rights) law scholar in the socio-economic and political struggles which take place outside the academe; focusing, for the most part, on our role as scholars in advancing struggles in favour of subaltern Third World peoples from within or in concert with international institutions and various kinds of what I will refer to in this paper as “on-the-ground” activist groups (such as social movements and NGOs). The article begins by examining some of the various ideas and conceptions of praxis, so as to be clear from the outset as to the sense in which that key term is used in this context. The question of the ends or goals for which we do praxis is also discussed at this point. The discussion then moves on to the important question of what it means to enact TWAIL praxis and to do so within or in relation to international institutions or “on-the-ground” groups, and a conceptual/normative framework for such activity is offered. The paper then focuses on a relatively brief analysis of some of the experiences that the author has had as a TWAILian international (human rights) law scholar who has also been closely engaged in some way with international institutions and on-the-ground groups. Following this, a reflection on the promise and perils of such close engagement with this kind of praxis is offered. The article ends with some concluding remarks.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".