Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on several years of experience in teaching human rights history to undergraduate students in Canada, this article reflects on the challenges involved in imparting knowledge on this subject in a settler colonial context. It builds on examples gleaned from working with undergraduate students, from scholarship on the history of settler colonialism, as well as from Indigenous worldviews and epistemologies, to consider the ways in which the teaching of human rights history needs to evolve alongside and in dialogue with contemporary discussions about rights and justice. The article contends that given contemporary discussions around rights, which reveal the fragility of the liberal human rights framework, this is urgent and necessary work. It concludes by offerings ways of approaching student experiences, insider/outsider dynamics, and contemporary debates when teaching human rights history. The overall purpose of the article is to resituate the teaching of human rights history in a critical, self-reflective manner. In this way, the damaging implications of certain progress-oriented historical narratives centering on the idea and evolution of human rights can also be considered in pedagogical practices on the subject.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".