Law, poverty and time: the dynamics of poverty in constitutional human rights adjudication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poverty is an event in time. Only dynamic thinking can fully capture its reality. This thesis contends that human rights case law is based on a static perception of poverty inconsistent with the dynamic perception of poverty in economics. Failing to notice its temporal aspects, the examined courts consequently produce judgments that overlook essential aspects of this socio-economic phenomenon. This is puzzling, since in other contexts of constitutional human rights adjudication the passage of time bears a significant role. This means that for courts to switch from a static perspective to a dynamic perspective of poverty does not require new legal tools. The duration of poverty and change in poverty can be incorporated into judicial thinking using familiar norms and doctrines. The extent of poverty, whether it is transitory or a long-term situation, the chances of escaping it in the near future, the fluctuations in depth of poverty over the years, the probability that upon emerging from poverty one will be caught up in it again, the inheritance of poverty from parents to children: these are all time-related concerns that bear profound significance on the lives of poor people. A static examination not only overlooks these issues, but also neglects the essence of long-term poverty. Viewing poverty through the lens of time would reveal a broader and more complex human rights picture, producing a richer legal analysis, and, finally, leading to a more suitable remedy. This study examines cases that consider claims relating to the economic situation of poor people, concentrating on examples from France, Canada and Israel. The analysis reveals the temporal approach of each judgment and suggests an alternative, dynamic reading of poverty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".