Mozambican adults’ perspectives on human rights: Comparison with French and Venezuelan adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study assessed conceptualisations of human rights in Mozambique, a developing country with a history of Portuguese colonisation. Participants were 102 Mozambicans adults (female = 48%; mean age = 29.25 years; SD = 9.04 years). They responded to four kinds of information from realistic human rights scenarios: (i) the level of social protection citizens in the country enjoyed; (ii) the level of freedom of expression they enjoyed; (iii) the objective level of equality between citizens in the country; and (iv) the extent to which private life was respected. The Mozambican participants endorsed the indivisibility model of human rights, considering that only regimes that guarantee the full experience of all four kinds of basic rights can be considered as fully respectful of human rights. This perspective is similar of the one sustained by French and Venezuelan participants in a previous study. These findings suggest that the widespread “belle policy” (economic and social rights should take precedence over political and civil rights) defended by many sub-Saharan African policymakers must be challenged in favour of policies that promote the simultaneous fulfilment of all the citizens’ human rights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".