Equitable utilization of the atmosphere: a rights-based approach to climate change?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most discussions of a rights-based approach to the environmental crises facing the planet quite appropriately centre on demanding that each state take action to prevent or mitigate environmental harm that diminishes, for those within its territory and jurisdiction, the enjoyment of internationally guaranteed human rights. Environmental degradation, in particular global climate change, undeniably has a negative impact on, and will increasingly limit, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, especially for the world's most vulnerable populations. Nonetheless, problems of standing, justiciability, ripeness and causality have been among the prominent problems encountered when individuals have sought to vindicate their rights through human rights litigation. Another rights-based approach is explored herein, whereby the government of a state may, and, indeed, arguably has the duty to, assert and defend the rights of its inhabitants, rather than remaining passive and ultimately defending itself for alleged rights-violating acts and omissions. The premise of the approach is that in the international community, which is organized on a territorial basis among some 192 independent, sovereign and juridically equal states, governments exist for the purpose of protecting the sovereign rights of the state and the human rights of their inhabitants, present and future, or, in constitutional language, ‘to ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare and ensure liberty to its citizens now and in the future’.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".