Risks to the Human Rights Advocacy in African Constitutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of a comparative legal study of the texts of the constitutions of African states with a view to identifying the rules that minimize human rights risks. The research is based on a dialectical approach to the disclosure of legal phenomena and processes using general scientific (systematic and logical methods, analysis and synthesis) and specific scientific methods. African constitutions, in comparison with the constitutions of other states, and in particular European ones, contain a disproportionately large number of rules formalizing special human rights institutions. Typically, these are special councils, human rights commissions (Egypt, Morocco, and Tunisia) or certain categories of the population (three in Egypt, three in Morocco, one in the Central African Republic). In Morocco and Equatorial Guinea, both the Mediator and the Public Defender are established, respectively. The relevance of the study is due to the strategic objectives of creating a secure human rights status of the state, as well as the need to find and update theoretical, methodological, and practical approaches to protecting the rights and freedoms of a human and a citizen. Considering the rules of the African constitutional model of minimizing risks to human right advocacy, objectively in terms of quantity and quality, are considered hyperbolic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".