Conceptual and Theoretical Exposition on Democracy and Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liberal democracy as a system of government in theory guarantees; human dignity, equality, social justice, morality, liberty, freedom, rule by the majority, selection of representatives directly or indirectly, popular participation, observance of the tenets of rule of law, separation of powers and fair play. The theory of democracy equally encourages the protection of fundamental human rights of citizens. In practice, the above features of democracy may become unrealistic if elected representatives choose to be doctorial, despotic, totalitarian, authoritarian and anti-democratic at the long run. Therefore, the major thrust of this chapter is to interrogate the connection between democracy and human rights in practice. Methodologically, a qualitative data was obtained in form of content analysis of; extant laws, constitutional provisions, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, empirical Studies, Journals, textbooks and monograph. Valid conclusions were drawn after thorough analysis of secondary data. The findings of the study reveal that the connection between democracy and human rights is debatable since the inability to determine the scope of human right made its universal application an intricate task. On the whole, the study recommends for enlightenment campaigns and political education of citizens about their rights and responsibilities in representative democracy. Also, there is need to define the scope of human right globally in order to enhance its universal applicability.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".