Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the side of the angels?Our aspiration but not always our history.Most Canadians take considerable satisfaction in the quick and easy assumption that, when it comes to human rights on the world stage, without question Canada is a country that stands "on the side of the angels."It is who we are.Isn't it?Andrew Thompson's insightful review of six decades of Canadian engagement within the UN human rights system is a thoughtful reminder that Canada has had a much more complicated and nuanced history as a global human rights leader.There have been positions, initiatives, and accomplishments that have been truly angelic, assuredly so.But not always.The eyes of many readers will no doubt open wide, for example, as they learn that, when the most precious and revered human rights instrument of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, came up for an initial round of voting in 1948, Canada did not vote in favour of it.No, Canadians then were not with the angels as the United Nations took its initial step to give substance to the newly established global body's promise of an international order rooted in respect for human rights.Instead, alone among Western liberal democracies and aligning themselves with Soviet Bloc countries, Canadians abstained in the UN Third Committee.That quickly gave way to a vote in favour of the declaration when it came before the full UN General Assembly.But few Canadians now would
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.571 | 0.435 |
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".