The Domestic Implementation of International Law: A Canadian Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International human rights law is a rapidly evolving area in which the focus on the rights of individuals, as opposed to states, challenges the norms of international law. For example, international human rights treaties and custom often enforce the right of the individual against the state that is often responsible for concluding and ratifying those very international treaties. As a result, although governments may ratify or support international human rights treaties and movements, the protection of those rights in Canada is not assured.\nThe domestic implementation of international human rights law in Canada occurs through two primary pathways. The first path is through the formal domestic implementation of international treaties (and custom) that have been signed by the federal government. The second path occurs through the adoption of human rights norms upheld by Canadian human rights law, as well as the organizations responsible for enforcing the rights of Canadians (for example the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Commission). This paper discusses the interaction between these two pathways using the example of the Canadian government's approach to the death penalty.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".