MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386504778 · doi:10.1515/9781772126716

Rights and the City

2022· book· en· W4386504778 on OpenAlex
Sandeep Agrawal

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Alberta Press eBooks · 2022
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLaw in Society and Culture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGovernment of CanadaSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of AlbertaCanada Council for the ArtsFederation for the Humanities and Social SciencesGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

rights and the city takes stock of rights struggles and their progress, with a primary focus on Canadian cities.It explores the meaning of people's experiences for the realization of human and other related forms of rights-locally, nationally, and globally.In addition, the project aims to examine the legal, conceptual, and philosophical aspects of rights, including the various forms of rights-human, Indigenous, housing, property, and various others embedded in or encompassing these.This book is unique in its use of empirical evidence and examples to explain rights and to translate the philosophical and legal aspects of rights into more practical terms and applications, such as the application and practice of rights to and in the city.The compilation elicits the constraints and ambiguities that municipal governments face, and some of the progress made when they attempt to combat discriminatory practices, while advancing a human rights agenda.This edited volume has one implicit question that unites all its parts: What is (and what ought to be) the role of municipal governments and planners in regulating, implementing, and advocating rights' claims?It answers the question empirically via legal research or analysis of statutory and case law, or it relies on qualitative case studies.This exploration presents Canada, 2020).They face greater risk because they often work in frontline jobs, live in smaller and more crowded homes, and encounter barriers when accessing health information.Concurrently, homelessness is on the rise in Canadian cities, as witnessed in the dramatic emergence of tent cities since the beginning of the pandemic.Although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) and human rights legislation prohibit any form of discrimination in employment, housing, or health care, these legal tools do not offer any specific social and economic rights, such as the rights to housing, health care, social assistance, or work that are guaranteed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (icescr).However, Canada, as a state, offers a comprehensive social protection and assistance framework in the form of unemployment benefits, social assistance, and health care to every Canadian.Unfortunately, each of these social programs has experienced steady funding cuts and reduction in assistance over the years.This volume adds might to the voices of people who are most affected by today's structural inequality and systemic discrimination, and who are sometimes subject to state violence.It explains how planning instruments were and still are complicit in creating a divisive, segregated city.At the same time, it describes the efforts and progress made, albeit slowly, with some hiccups along the way.In sum, this book is a call to reclaim and rebuild our cities so that they are equitable, diverse, and inclusive. Rights and FreedomsWhile no one definition of rights exists, rights are generally understood to be the fundamental normative rules in a given society for what its people are allowed to do or what they are owed by others, including governing bodies.These rules may be defined by a legal system, social conventions, or ethical theory.By one definition adopted here, rights are institutionally defined rules specifying how people can act with one another; they are upheld by enduring legal protections granted to individual citizens by the liberal-democratic state.They encapsulate two moral and political claims (Donnelly, 2013)-rectitude (righteousness or the right thing to Lately, the two ideas have been increasingly approaching each other: they are often used together, interchangeably, or nested, one within the other.Significant instances that exemplify this trend are recent un documents, such as the New Urban Agenda, a resolution adopted by the un General Assembly (2017), and an earlier policy paper for this agenda (2016).The un policy paper states: "The right to the city encompasses all civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights as enshrined in existing international human rights treaties, covenants, and conventions" (unga, 2016, IB).More and more, the right to the city is viewed as the framework in which human rights in the city are specified and developed (Reuter, 2019). 2.According to Mitchell (2003, p. 23), the individual nature of human rights protects the interest of an individual at the expense of others' rights and hence suffers "indeterminacy," "reification," and "political disutility." 3.Kantian imperfect obligation requires the rational being to pursue a policy that admits exceptions, as opposed to perfect obligation that does not allow any exceptions. 4.For Sen, public reasoning involves an open public discussion, which encompasses respect for pluralism and tolerance for different points of view.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it