MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123175809 · doi:10.4337/jhre.2013.01.04

Security of the person, peace of mind: a precautionary approach to environmental uncertainty

2013· article· en· W3123175809 on OpenAlexaff
Lynda Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Rights and the Environment · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicRisk Perception and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScope (computer science)Precautionary principleHuman rightsEnvironmental securityPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmental lawHuman healthLaw and economicsHuman securityUncertaintyBusinessLawSociologyEnvironmental healthEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article assesses the evolution of precautionary environmental human rights in the twenty years since Rio, with a focus on security of the person. In particular, the author argues that where there is evidence of a significant environmental threat to human health, coupled with scientific uncertainty regarding the existence, mechanism, or scope of the risk involved, the security of the person of exposed individuals is violated. Taking a precautionary approach to security of the person, and recognizing the integral role of psychology in human wellbeing, the author argues that the requirement to live daily with uncertainty regarding the safety of such fundamentals as air, water and soil violates the psychological integrity of affected communities, and amounts to an infringement of security of the person as protected in both national constitutions and international human rights instruments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.066
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Human Rights and the EnvironmentSame topicRisk Perception and ManagementFrench-language works237,207