Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our jointly authored monograph, Legislated Rights: Securing Human Rights through Legislation, argues that legislatures have a central, strategic role in protecting and promoting human rights. The book aims to shift “key premises of debate in human rights law, where it is regularly assumed that human rights are the special province of the courts and that legislation represents a threat rather than a means of protecting them.”1 Together with the book’s other authors—Richard Ekins, Maris Köpcke, Bradley Miller, and Francisco Urbina—we defend “the special role and responsibility of the legislature in securing human rights in positive law.”2 Our goal is “to reorient general thinking about the nature of rights, legislatures and courts, and legal and judicial reasoning” and, in so doing, to situate “legislation, rather than litigation and adjudication, at the centre of jurisprudential and legal thinking on human rights.”3 Our argument proceeds by defending theses in relation to rights, the common good, the moral value of positive law, legislation as reasoned action, the role of legislation in improving human rights adjudication, and the contingent nature of the case for judicial review of legislation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".