Human Rights Discourses in Nigeria Across Time: Trajectory, Successes and Potentials for Canadian-Nigerian Engagement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: Canada has, for decades, been actively involved in funding and providing support for the development of legal and political institutions and rights advocacy activities in Nigeria. A careful documentation and assessment of this support will likely show that its impact has been significant and perhaps critical in some areas. This article, however, considers a different form of engagement, or rather, a possible engagement. Although Canada’s human rights jurisprudence, especially the Charter of Rights case law, is highly regarded the world over, its influence on Nigerian courts has been limited. Yet, there is a great opportunity for meaningful engagement here, especially as Canadian universities are increasingly a preferred destination for graduate training by Nigerian lawyers and legal scholars, and knowledge of Canadian legal resources is disseminated through other engagement projects between the two countries. This article therefore considers the potentials for judicial engagement between Nigerian and Canadian courts on human rights. Part I provides a brief background. Parts II and III map the deferential and activist phases of the trajectory of human rights discourses in Nigeria, respectively. Part IV considers some possible sites of judicial engagement as between Nigerian and Canadian courts. In conclusion, Part V identifies certain inherent limits of this possible engagement.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it