Bibliographic record
Abstract
Underpinning current writings on human rights, one can discern a tone of urgency if not high anxiety. Authors are expressing bluntly their fear that populist agendas that are “avowedly nationalistic, xenophobic, misogynistic, and explicitly antagonistic to all or much of the human rights agenda” have become the dominant political force around the world and that “there is a revolt afoot against a global, cosmopolitan, liberal consensus” (Alston 2017). A strong variant of this theme has been expressed by Stephen Hopgood (2013) who begins his book “The Endtimes of Human Rights” with the claim that “the prospect of one world under a secular human rights law is receding. What seemed like a dawn is in fact a sunset. The foundations of universal liberal norms and global governance are crumbling, creating a vacancy where sovereignty and religion now make dramatic inroads in the post-Cold War World.” In the following pages, building on claims by Hollifield and Joppke that domestic courts, rather than the International Human Rights Regime have served and can continue to serve as a powerful control over excessive claims of sovereignty, I suggest that it is timely to reconsider and re-imagine how this assault against human rights can be addressed in the courtroom. I present immigration law, refugee law and citizenship law as fields in which the deficiencies of nativism and populism can be readily exposed. While the Supreme Court of Canada and the Federal Courts have hesitated in recent years to extend a constitutional cloak of protection to non-citizens, the spectre of an illiberal future and reframed arguments may be sufficient to persuade them to alter their stance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".