MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177755077 · doi:10.5539/res.v13n3p7

Covid 19: Human Rights and State Responsibility

2021· article· en· W3177755077 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yeshwant Naik

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Studies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Security and Public Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsOppressionPolitical scienceAuthoritarianismContext (archaeology)State (computer science)PoliticsPublic healthFreedom of movementLaw and economicsLawSociologyDemocracy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human rights dimensions of the Covid-19 response escalate the obligations of governments. Since the time Covid was first identified in December 2020 in Wuhan, China, Human Rights Watch has reported several human rights abuses including the authoritarian responses in some countries.  Many governments are expanding public health measures by abandoning universal human rights. People are arrested for violating lockdown measures and curfews. Police and/or security forces are using violence, including lethal force, to enforce public health measures such as curfews and the wearing of masks. Lockdowns have imposed restrictions on individual movement by restraining them from leaving their place of residence. Some countries have imposed partial lockdowns. While restrictions on freedom of movement are necessary in the interest of protecting public health, states still are accountable to ensure that such restrictions are proportionate, evidence-based, and time-limited.  There were grievances and inequalities across countries, some of which were based on racist, gender-specific or other discrimination. There is also increased oppression of those who think differently. The pandemic exposes the failures in the context of political action and cooperation. The article makes recommendations on how governments can confront the pandemic while respecting basic human rights.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.564

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European StudiesSame topicGlobal Security and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207