Exploring the core content of socio-economic rights : South African and International perspectives, D Brand and S Russell (Eds.) : review note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".