Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers the benefits and pitfalls of international human rights law as a component of artificial intelligence (AI) governance initiatives. It argues that (1) human rights law can serve as an authoritative resource for providing definitions to highly contested terms such as fairness or equality, (2) it can be used to address the problem of international regulatory arbitrage, and (3) it provides a framework to hold public and private actors legally accountable. At the same time, the paper considers recent critiques of human rights law and its application to AI governance, such as (1) lack of effectiveness; (2) inability to effect structural change, and finally, (3) the problem of cooptation. The article argues that while there is room for international human rights in the realm of AI governance, we should look to it with tempered expectations as to its promises and limitations.
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 | 0.072 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".