MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410131375 · doi:10.1080/13642987.2025.2496891

Defining human rights in the socio-cultural and political context of South Sudan: how to move towards the assertion of full human rights in line with international law?

2025· article· en· W4410131375 on OpenAlexaff
Aboubacar Dakuyo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Human Rights · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman rightsAssertionPoliticsPolitical scienceContext (archaeology)International human rights lawLawInternational lawLaw and economicsSociologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

South Sudan faces a dire human rights situation, characterised by recurrent violations committed by government forces, armed opposition groups, militias and community-based armed cattle raiders. This study applies the ‘universality of human rights’ approach to the country to ask the following questions: How can we explain the appalling human rights situation in South Sudan? How can we move towards the assertion of full human rights on the basis of a more universalist approach to human rights in accordance with international law? To answer these questions, the study considers that South Sudan is not a ‘lawless’ country, but rather that the legacy of colonialism and the militarisation of the region during the years of civil war created a culture of violence and human rights violations that persists to this day. The study is structured in three parts: The first presents the situation of human rights violations in the socio-cultural and political context of South Sudan. The second part looks at the challenge of defining human rights in the context of competing standards for authority. The third part examines how the country can move towards asserting full human rights in accordance with international law.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Human RightsSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207