Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns about manageable remedies have been a major impediment to recognition of socio-economic and cultural (SEC) rights. Part I examines remedies available for SEC rights violations in supra-national and domestic courts including interim remedies, suspended declarations of invalidity and other remands to legislatures, damages, declarations and injunctions. Part II argues that individual remedies should not be rejected because of concerns that they may result in inequitable queue jumping. Part III examines the role that proportionality principles and reasonableness review can play in justifying delays and limits on SEC rights. including in emergencies. Part IV examines South African engagement remedies. Although they can result in consensual and creative agreement, they can also be used as a means to limit rights and authorize evictions. Courts should address inequality of bargaining power including through the use of interim remedies. Part V suggests that South African courts are taking a two-track approach when they combine anti-eviction remedies with more dialogic systemic remedies including engagement. The relation between individual remedies and the minimum core of SEC rights is explored, as is the importance of individual remedies in responding to remedial failure and triggering cycles of reform.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".