The right-remedy gap in economic and social rights adjudication: Holism versus separability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If the right-remedy gap is an inevitable feature of constitutional law, it is all the more so for constitutional economic and social rights. Yet such rights – to have access, for example, to health care, education, social security, housing, food, water, sanitation, or other good or service or opportunity deemed fundamental to human freedom and dignity – are not uniform in the remedial gaps that occur. This article introduces the orientations of holism and separability to demarcate the distinctive challenges of rights adjudication across different policy domains. A holistic understanding of economic and social rights points to the institutional challenges faced by courts in reviewing socio-economic laws and policies in general. A separable analysis of discrete economic and social rights helps to clarify the remedial constraints of each. These effects are demonstrated by the remedies ordered by courts with respect to identified infringements of South Africa’s constitutional rights to housing, health care, social security, and education.
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 | 0.044 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".