MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737102794

Exploring the core content of socio-economic rights : South African and International perspectives, D Brand and S Russell (Eds.) : review note

2003· article· en· W2737102794 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
André Mbata Mangu

Bibliographic record

VenueSA Publiekreg = SA Public Law · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsCovenantCultural rightsPolitical scienceConstitutionInternational human rights lawContext (archaeology)Social rightsFundamental rightsLawEconomic growthGeographyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The book is the product of a conference, which was held in August 2000 in Pretoria. It is a comparative study of rights that appear in both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the South African Constitution of 1996, albeit not always in the same guise. The conference was organised jointly by the Social and Economic Rights Project of the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, and the Science and Human Rights Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Contributors included scholars from South Africa (6), the USA (3), Australia (1), Canada (1), Germany (1), the Netherlands (1) and the UK (1). This is a very interesting and wide range of experts that could not but help one to comprehend the content of social and economic rights and the interplay between the South African Bill of Rights and international law of social and economic rights. Since the enforcement of these rights in the South African context faces similar challenges in the rest of the African continent and the 'Third World', it, therefore would have been of greater interest to include scholars from other developing countries.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSA Publiekreg = SA Public LawSame topicLegal Issues in South AfricaFrench-language works237,207