Evaluating Canadian and South African Collaborative Human Rights Initiatives: A Preliminary Analysis and Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
South Africa’s now defunct, autocratic apartheid government was based on minority rule, racially discriminatory laws, and disregard for the fundamental human rights of almost all black people. At that time, Parliament was supreme and could do anything that it wished, including enacting laws that denied the vast majority of the population from the right to vote. This regime lasted until the 1990s when parliamentary supremacy was replaced by constitutional supremacy. The adoption of the Interim Constitution of South Africa in 1993 eventually paved way for, among other things, respect for the fundamental human rights of all peoples without any distinctions as to race. Importantly, the 1993 Constitution contained an enforceable Bill of Rights and proclaimed the supremacy of the Constitution. These provisions found their way in the 1996 Constitution. This Constitution was “developed using the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms as a template” inspiration from its provisions. This paper seeks to study the human rights engagements between the Canadian government and Canadian NGOs with both government and civil society in South Africa from the early 1990s to date.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".