Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared to other Western democracies, references to “human rights” are rare in domestic American law. A survey of landmark Supreme Court cases reveals that both conservative and liberal Justices made no mention of “human rights” when addressing fundamental questions: racial segregation, the death penalty, prisoners’ rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, gay rights, and indefinite detention at Guantanamo. This absence illustrates a broader societal trait. In the United States, “human rights” commonly evoke foreign problems like abuses in Third World dictatorships—not domestic problems. By contrast, human rights play a relatively important role as a domestic principle in Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Diverse legal, political, sociological, historical, and normative factors shed light on why human rights have hardly made headway as a domestic principle in America.\nThe disinclination to frame domestic problems as human rights issues or to consider humanitarian questions per se helps explain why modern-day America has a worse human rights record than other Western democracies in various areas, including criminal justice, the “War on Terror,” and access to affordable health care. America notably has the highest incarceration rate worldwide; is the only Western democracy to retain the death penalty; and has openly tortured alleged terrorists. In addition, it is the sole Western nation to lack universal health care, which is essentially considered a human right elsewhere in the West.\nThe relative absence of human rights as a principle in contemporary American law is particularly striking given that America has made substantial contributions to the development of individual rights since becoming the first modern democracy to emerge from the Enlightenment in the 18th century. American leaders like Franklin Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Martin Luther King also played an active role in promoting the principle of “human rights” as it gradually emerged into a major international movement. If human rights have not achieved meaningful recognition as a domestic legal principle in the United States, it partly reflects the contradictions of American society.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it