MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300027116 · doi:10.46692/9781847428974.011

Justice, rights and capabilities

2010· other· en· W4300027116 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of OxfordQueen's UniversityUniversity of CambridgeMcGill UniversityUniversity of Chicago
KeywordsEconomic JusticePolitical scienceLaw and economicsBusinessEnvironmental ethicsLawSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter is concerned with a central question: how far can the ideas embedded in contemporary views of rights and justice take us in the development of a good life for people with intellectual disabilities? Rights Is there another word for rights. A lot of people (with intellectual disabilities) don't know what rights mean. (Roberts, 2009) Like many other concepts addressed in this book, ‘rights’ is a generally used term, the meaning of which is seldom unpacked, and, as Bill Roberts says, for people with intellectual disabilities it can be a difficult one to explain in concrete terms. To describe the history and development of rights would take a book in itself, however we believe it is important to provide a brief account of how ideas about rights have evolved and their implications for people with intellectual disabilities. It is also important to position them in relation to the philosophical accounts in Part One of what constitutes a good life because: If we do not know what human rights are exactly, how they have developed and why they might be important, making a decision about how best they might be protected will be correspondingly more difficult. (Zifcak and King, 2009, p 11) What are rights? The conception of rights is deeply embedded in Western philosophical views about the nature of being human and of ‘a life well lived’ or, in our terms, ‘a good life’. As we will see in this brief account, they resonate strongly with the discussion of a good life in earlier parts of this book. Rights are not a new concept, although there has been a strong focus on them since the middle of the 20th century. They have their basis in theological writing and philosophy in the late middle ages. Thomas Aquinas, for example, asserted that there were certain natural laws or principles of justice. He defined justice as ‘what is owed to everyone in common’ as opposed to obligations to particular individuals. Aquinas saw rights as entitlements that encompassed life, reason, determination of one's life course, peaceful living and the search for God. Enlightenment philosophers such as Kant and Mill removed rights from their theological context and reconstituted them as moral principles derived from reason alone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.276 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207