MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2748288925 · doi:10.1163/15718158-01801003

Expanding the Role of the Philippine Commission on Human Rights for the Protection of Gender Equality in the Workplace

2017· article· en· W2748288925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Sanchez Salcedo

Bibliographic record

VenueAsia Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsCommissionMandatePolitical scienceLawInternational human rights lawLinguistic rightsFundamental rightsPoliticsAdjudicationStatutory lawRight to propertyConstitutionRights of NatureMediationPromotion (chess)Public administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The multi-layered system of human rights protection complemented by a comprehensive campaign for human rights promotion in Canada can provide strategic guidance for the Philippine Commission on Human Rights as it manifests unfortunate hesitation to exercise its statutory mandate to protect and promote women’s rights. Originally created for the primary purpose of investigating all forms of human rights violations involving civil and political rights under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the Philippine Commission on Human Rights lacks the capacity and has insufficient resources to extend its reach. The three main functions of mediation, investigation, and referral to adjudication, of the human rights commissions in various Canadian provinces and territories, as well as at the federal level, readily offer an appropriate and affordable model that can be easily emulated in the Philippine setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0070.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.004

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsia Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the LawSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207