Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article conceives of human rights as a tool for promoting the values of its users. It links human rights to a continuous pursuit of a dynamic equality, which is rooted in empathy. Highlighting issues including the problematic association of human rights with the judiciary and the tool’s co-optation by sources of power, the article calls for a re-evaluation of our institutions. States are pre-eminent agents in providing human rights protections, but this must be challenged as the constitution of the state’s organs are reconsidered, specifically regarding how the colonial experience has shaped the modern state. This leads to a reconfiguration of understandings of responsibility for human rights protections and violations. The piece calls for a reconsideration of whom the “humans” are that human rights are designed to protect. The article concludes by condemning the extension of property rights, and their abuse by corporate entities through intellectual, moral and practical lenses.
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 | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.081 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".