The Legal Protection of Human Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reacting to the poor record of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and similar provisions in protecting human rights, this book explores ways of promoting human rights more effectively through political and democratic mechanisms. The book expresses ideological scepticism concerning the relative neglect of social and economic rights and institutional scepticism concerning the failures of court-centred means for enhancing human rights goals in general. Criticizing the ‘juridification’ of human rights through the transferring of the prime responsibility for defining human rights violations to courts and advocating the greater ‘politicization’ of human rights responsibilities through such measures as enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of existing and proposed legislation, a group of twenty-four human rights scholars present a variety of perspectives on the disappointing human rights outcomes of recent institutional developments and consider the prospects of reviving the moral force and political implications of human rights values. Thus, one chapter recounts the Human Rights Act failures with respect to counter-terrorism legislation, another charts how the ‘dialogue’ model reduces parliaments' capacities to hold governments to accountable for human rights violations, a further chapter considers which institutions best protect fundament al rights, and another chapter reflects on how the idea of human rights could be ‘rescued’ in Britain today. Other chapters deal with the historical human rights failures of courts during the Cold War and in Northern Ireland, the diverse outcomes of human rights judicial review, and examine aspects of the human rights regimes in a variety of jurisdictions, including Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, Canada, Europe, and the United States.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".