Dignity: A Special Focus on Vulnerable Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year 2008 marked the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To commemorate this occasion, and in order to make a meaningful contribution to the protection of human rights, the Swiss Government decided to launch Agenda for Human Rights”. The initiative aims to explore new ways of giving human rights the weight and place they deserve in the 21st century. It is designed as an evolving and intellectually independent process. The text Protecting Dignity: An Agenda for Human Rights was authored by a Panel of Eminent Persons, co-chaired by Mary Robinson and Paulo Pinheiro. This Agenda and the Swiss Initiative are designed to achieve two objectives: firstly, to set out some of the main contemporary challenges on the enjoyment of human rights, and secondly, to encourage research and discussion on a number of separate topics linked to the Agenda. These include: Human Dignity – Prevention – Detention – Migration – Statelessness – Climate Change and Human Rights – the Right to Health – and A World Human Rights Court. The project was sponsored and financed by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Austria actively supported the project. The Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights was responsible for the coordination and organisation of the Initiative.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".