Implementing the human right to science in the context of health: introduction to the special issue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like its better known siblings, the human right to benefit from scientific progress ('the human right to science' or HRS) celebrated 75 years in 2023.Initially articulated in the first draft of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 1 then shortly thereafter in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 2 (UDHR), then some years later in the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights 3 (ICESCR) and other regional human rights instruments 4 , the human right to science has been a 'sleeping beauty' 5 -largely ignored by the international community, policy-makers, scientists, and citizens.All the while its siblings such as the right to the highest attainable standard of health, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the right to equality before the law, and the very idea of human rights have been the backbone to social and political movements. 6 A late bloomer, the human right to science's time has arrived.In an era where scientific advancements risk disrupting the very complementarity between science and 1
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 | 0.031 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".