Highlighting Ideas of Human Rights: A Review of American Intellectuals’ Classic Writings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article intends to review the ideas of human rights appearing in several American intellectuals’ classic writings from the Puritan era up to the modern era. It is a descriptive qualitative writing whose focus is on a literature review. In so doing, close reading is applied as a method and interdisciplinary perspective as its framework It is found that the ideas of human rights have spread as a public issue from the Puritan era until the modern era when proposed by many intellectuals, i.e., Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Adams, James Madison, Frederick Douglass, Martin Delany, George Fitzhugh, Abraham Lincoln, Sarah Grimke, Louisa McCord, Margaret Fuller, Betty Friedan, William Lloyd Garrison, and so forth. In response to many inhumane social conditions in the United States, human rights ideas arose.The ideas certainly support the establishment of the United States as a country. Consequently, this fact indicates that human rights ideas have persisted in the veins of the American nation over time, preserving it as the most plural and multicultural one in which all entities are welcome and acknowledged.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".