The Position of the UN Conventions to Determine and Guarantee Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present era, providing human rights represents the governance quality of a government and human rights treaties are criteria for its assessment. Also the UN human rights conventions, because of their international nature in the past seven decades, have been the main representative to reflect man's fundamental demands. Now the main question is that to what extent these conventions are remarkable and effective in order to explain and guarantee human rights in the international arena? The author believes that the conventions are the most important international mechanisms to identify human rights which compared to the past history of mankind have offered the most comprehensive international regulations in order to reflect the fundamental human rights. But then, two main factors undermined the effectiveness of the conventions. The first factor is intratextual drawbacks of the conventions which are divided into three drawbacks: reservation, withdrawal and arbitrary essence of accepting the committees’ competence. The second and more important factor is the reasons out of the conventions which are divided into two categories: the doctrine of privity of contract and disobedience by some governments under the ideological or moral reasons. The first factor can be addressed by the secondary amendments. However, the big challenge is the second factor which mechanism to settle it are to inform the international community about the importance of the UN human rights conventions, creating intersubjective understanding and eventually accepting the supremacy of international human rights over internal law.
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 | 0.027 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".