MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995471299 · doi:10.7202/1068663ar

General Comment No. 24 on State Obligations Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities: The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Has Played Its Part

2020· article· en· W2995471299 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sophie Grosbon

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue québécoise de droit international · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCultural rightsLaw and economicsSocial rightsTreatyHuman rightsLawPolitical scienceObligationReservation of rightsContext (archaeology)International human rights lawState (computer science)Right to propertyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of discussions on the elaboration of an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted in 2017 the General Comment No. 24 on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities. Going against neoliberal logic, the Committee promotes a welfare state that effectively circumscribes economic freedoms and that resolutely protects vulnerable populations. Among various interpretations of instruments and extraterritorial obligations, the Committee clearly chooses a teleological interpretation, without disrupting the economy of the treaty, but by decidedly opting for the control of transnational businesses by way of the only actors it can reach, given its mandate: States. The extraterritorial obligation to protect consists mainly in adopting reasonable measures (duty of diligence, judicial cooperation, fight against fiscal optimization) to prevent violations of the Covenant by a private business that the State can influence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue québécoise de droit internationalSame topicCorporate Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207