Human rights and the effluxion of time; Canada's Chinese immigration act as illustrative of the need for judicial remedies for human rights violations of the distant past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the post-World War II era, the concept that all humans possess certain fundamental rights has achieved widespread acceptance. While no geographic limitations are acknowledged to the universality of human rights and the availability of remedies for the violation of those rights, temporal limitations seem to persist. That is, even very serious human rights violations of the distant past have often failed to attract remedies, particularly judicial remedies. The result can be lingering societal discontent. One example has been the case of Chinese immigration Canada who for many decades were required to pay a "head tax" and were for a further period banned altogether. An examination of the history of Canada's Chinese Immigration Act provides evidence of the need for courts to be able to effectively consider and, where appropriate, provide remedies for human rights violations of the distant past. Recommended changes that would facilitate this include: recognition that at least some human rights exist independently of the legislative instruments that have been created to protect them, and can be given judicial effect without recourse to those legislative instruments; recognition that the policy grounds underpinning judicial remediation of human rights violations are essentially the same as those underpinning judicial remediation of criminal offences; and development of a reasoned approach by which to distinguish between those cases for which the courts should provide remedies and those for which they should not.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".