Engagement with Human Rights by Administrative Decision-Makers: A Transformative Opportunity to Build a More Grassroots Human Rights Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trends in public law jurisprudence increasingly require administrative decision-makers to engage with complex human rights concepts in exercising their discretion. This includes not only the Charter but also international human rights sources. The engagement with human rights that is expected of administrative decision-makers is demanding: it is broad in terms of the concepts and sources that could be implicated, flexible in how the concepts could affect the decision, and rigorous in the required analysis. It will likely prove challenging for decision-makers, the people who are subject to their decisions, and the legal community in general.But there would be real benefits to meeting the challenge head-on. It will be argued that if this vision is realized, administrative proceedings will become an increasingly important venue for the contestation and interpretation of human rights. This amounts to a vision of a more grassroots and decentralized human rights culture in Canada, in which a wider range of individuals would have the opportunity to participate in structured, yet accessible, conversations about rights. Of course, realizing this vision in practice will be challenging. But if more voices are allowed to take part in debate about rights issues, democratic shortcomings in our rights culture could be rectified, and Canada’s human rights jurisprudence could benefit from unexpected innovations.
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 | 0.091 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.043 | 0.152 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.061 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".