Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasingly, Canadians are framing their concerns about poverty -including access to food, housing, health, education, social assistance, and decent employment -as issues of human rights.Perhaps not surprisingly, a human rights-based approach to understanding and combating poverty is gaining purchase at the same time that governments are eroding social programs, embracing neo-liberal ideas of self-reliance and private responsibility, and reducing opportunities for democratic political engagement about social policy issues.Although, historically, poverty has been thought of as a matter to be dealt with privately, through charity or the family, during important decades in Canada, principally between the 1950s and the 1980s, protection from poverty was also regarded as a critical subject matter for legislation and redistributive measures.Lately, however, governments have been allowing poverty to disappear from the social policy agenda, apparently content to permit poverty and extreme disparities in income and wealth to flourish.These legislative and policy choices are at odds with a human rights framework that treats freedom from want as a fundamental interest of every human being and a precondition for genuine democracy.The diverse contributors to this book think about human rights -statutory, constitutional, and treaty rights -not only as legal instruments that can be used as a basis for adjudication in a court of law but also as articulations of fundamental values and as understandings of what it means to be a "citizen" in a democratic society.The idea that all human beings are equal in worth is the foundation of the rule of law and of democracy, positing that every person is entitled to be treated with equal concern and respect by governments and to have an equal voice in political decision making.The poverty and economic inequality of some, disproportionately of those who are already disadvantaged because of their female sex, non-white race, or disability, stands in marked contrast to these commitments to equality.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".