Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of education in preserving the rights of people should be seen as fundamental to the constitution of any learning programs that either aim for, or achieve, a more inclusive social development program in all zones of our world.It is with this in mind that citizenship education becomes an important prospect, not only in citizens critically ascertaining their rights and responsibilities in social or state-society locations, but as well in fully exercising those rights and responsibilities, with one main objective being the overall wellbeing of individuals and groups in specific tempo-spatial realities and relationships.Indeed, as should be understood, all education can be described as citizenship education.It is based on our corresponding understanding, therefore, that we undertook the organization of the international conference Educating for Human Rights and Global Citizenship, where we invited educators, students, and other theorists and practitioners to share with us their analyses and criticisms of the role of education in achieving a global project of active citizenship and human rights.The five articles in this issue of the journal were among the papers presented at that conference, and they were chosen, along with others that are being published in other venues, based on their cogency of the specialized perspectives (vis-à-vis where we are today) in achieving a comprehensive project of educating for human rights and global citizenship.As things are today in our world, the global citizenship and human rights project is at best fractured and at worst missing from the lives of so many people.In fact despite the claims of democratic citizenship in many zones of the globe, the myriad claims in democratic development may actually yield a world platform where more are subjects of some sort of a governing consortium than real citizens whose basic rights are inviolable and institutionally safeguarded.This is despite the many experiments of state and societal building that have been undertaken in the past 200 years.Even the coercively enduring Westphalian system that has been with us for over 600 years does not seem to guarantee-that is, in more spaces than otherwise-not much more than the cyclical voting circuses that by and large assure the rotating ascendancy of the rule of the elite, who as Ankie Hoogvelt reminded us, have a globally connected agenda that effectively designs and sustains the international status quo.Proactively to relaunch the important project of educating for human
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 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.027 |
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".