Interpreting human rights as the social psychological phenomenon of rights claiming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last 5 years, the intersection between psychology and human rights has become more evident, with influential international, national and local human rights institutions, including the American Psychological Association, issuing reports and resolutions on the topic. Within jurisprudence, human rights are less of a legalistic regulatory enactment and more of what social psychologists refer to as injunctive norms. We argue that conceptualising human rights as the social-psychological process of both creating and aligning injunctive and descriptive norms clarifies human rights and makes them more accessible to groups and individuals in society engaged in rights claiming. Rights claiming is a term we use to describe the moral cognitive process of people engaged in individual and/or collective behaviour aimed at securing their social identity within the public sphere where that identity is marginalised or the subject of discrimination. We argue that placing rights claiming at the centre of human rights psychology advances human rights. Focusing psychological research on social identity, the alignment of injunctive norms, deontic moral cognitions, human dignity, social dominance orientations and collective and individual behaviours forms part of securing a clear specialty in psychological science dedicated to human rights and advancing the American Psychological Association (APA)'s human rights mandate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".