Inalienable Dignity: Writing Counterhegemonic Universal Human Rights Histories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Human rights doctrine is founded on a notion of universality and inalienability. However, critics of the dominant formulation of “universal” human rights claim that it privileges Western epistemology and does not adequately reflect the histories and lived experiences of Indigenous communities. This has prompted calls for a more inclusive conceptualization and theorization of human rights that takes equal account of Indigenous histories and rights traditions. This article makes a case for reconceptualizing universal human rights to reflect the epistemologies of historically marginalized communities. Drawing on debates in African history, it calls for a counterhegemonic approach to human rights that goes beyond possessive individualism and the neoliberal, state-centered rights model. To be truly universal, international human rights must take equal account of the communal and collectivist ethos that underpins Indigenous notions of human dignity.
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 | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".