MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377242283 · doi:10.1177/17550882231169489

A human right to political membership & the right to territory

2023· article· en· W4377242283 on OpenAlexaff
Afifa Khwaja

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Political Theory · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)PoliticsHuman rightsSovereigntySociologyLawPolitical scienceLaw and economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global justice debates frame the right to political membership and territorial rights by focusing on stateless individuals/refugees as claimants of the former and sovereign states as the claimants of the latter. Kant’s Right to Hospitality is often employed to reinforce this mode of framing rights. However, this mode of framing rights can lead to possible neglect of a people as an equally important right claimant. I employ a context-oriented interpretation of Kant’s right to Hospitality to highlight the non-state people’s claims to political membership and territory. I suggest that in Kant, while the non-state people are not in a civil condition, we can nevertheless recognize their provisional claims to the territory, which are forceful enough to exclude outsiders. Furthermore, the non-state people cannot be forced into a political membership with us or each other because we do not know the nature of obligations they may have towards each other. Recognizing these limits of our understanding can encourage philosophically thought-out modes of reframing indigenous people’s claims in our theoretical debates. In practice, it can promote an insightful attitude in negotiating their terms of political membership and land claims against the sovereign states.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.333 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Political TheorySame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207