Canadian-Tanzanian Human Rights Engagements: A Critical Assessment of the Literature and a Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the historical background of human rights in Tanzania and the ways in which Canada has been engaging with Tanzania on the improvement of human rights. In the past, Tanzania was ruled by colonial powers, for which respect for human rights was never a priority. Having attained independence in 1961, however, the country did not adequately respect human rights. This is in part due to the argument that, if the British themselves did not practice it, then independent Tanzania should not be forced to. Furthermore, the introduction of human rights at the time held the potential to paralyze the struggle for nationalization. It was not until 1984 that the country included a bill of rights into its Constitution as a result of mounting pressure from the Tanganyika Law Society. Despite the fact that the country has a bill of rights and works towards the achievement of human rights, the attainment of these rights necessitates financial support from donors, such as the aid that Canada has provided thus far. Canada has given attention and support to areas such as education and women and children’s rights. Nevertheless, the article suggests that more attention should be given to other human rights areas to ensure that citizens can fully enjoy their rights.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".