Bibliographic record
Abstract
On examining the political theories of John Rawls and Charles Beitz, this paper is a product of the perceived disparities between the idealism of human rights theory and the socio-political failures of the real-time human rights corpus. With both theorists serving as the moral and theoretical foundations of the discourse, the loci of their arguments will be presented and dissected in light of contemporary political attitudes. This paper aims to scrutinise the human rights discourse through the lens I believe to be its most damaging: cultural pluralism and a simultaneous tendency toward (neo)-imperialist attitudes. Moreover, with the current literature failing to provide adequately constructive answers, I have endeavoured to present a compelling commentary on where I believe the necessitating changes lie culturally, attitudinally, and politically. In preserving and upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a productive and morally beneficial basis on which to ground this commentary, this paper assumes ‘human rights’ to refer to the articles enshrined in this United Nations’ document. This conception and the attitudes and actions surrounding it have nonetheless incurred significant and warranted criticism, consideration of which prompted the proposed conception that human rights be defined politically as rights to choose.
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 | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".