International Solidarity as a Human Right, Shared Goal, and Community Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay explores three approaches to understanding international solidarity in contexts of migration: as a human right, as a shared goal, or as community-driven action. From a legal perspective, international solidarity has been enumerated as an enabling right that facilitates the exercise of other substantive human rights. An international solidarity-based approach to rights expands the range of actors, incorporating civil society groups as rights-holders, and international organizations and non-state actors as duty bearers. A social science lens might foreground a transversal approach to international solidarity, embracing difference in pursuit of equity. In other words, international solidarity can be conceptualized as a plurality of actors pursuing shared goals across different struggles while rejecting homogeneity. From the vantage of activism, international solidarity can be understood as a force that can enable migrants and deportees who have been excluded and invisibilized to connect particular and local struggles to different local struggles and even transnational struggles. It can counteract dehumanization and portend hope by highlighting the ripple effect that social movements and their work can have on a range of disadvantaged communities. In all three approaches, international solidarity reinforces human connection but with a different emphasis: on the expansion of opportunities to exercise rights, on the recognition and valuing of pluralism, and on the collective power that can be leveraged to encourage social change.
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 | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".