The Meaning and Function of Human Dignity within the Universal Human Rights\nStruggle for Freedom and Equality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
“Our dignity is more important than our lives” J. Steele (2008). The central goal of human rights has always been to respect and protect human dignity, equality and freedom for all human beings. Human dignity has not been fully defined in American policies, domestic laws or with respect to international law. A paradigm shift toward universal human rights in Europe, Germany, and Canada encourages international law with legal contributions toward human rights based on human rights convention. The purpose of this study was to examine the meaning and function of human dignity within the context of moral, political and legal realms and to trace the history of human dignity from the 18th century to the present day through various writings such as; The Bill of Rights, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948); The European Convention for the protection of Human Rights (1950) and current scholarly articles. Analysis included the use of Immanuel Kant’s ideal of intrinsic worth, the African American struggle for human rights, the shift from civil to human rights and the concept of full person identity. Research suggests that Europe now leads the international community toward human rights. Goldhaver (2007) suggests that since the time of President Carter the United States has been engaged in a period of silence with respects to human rights. Under the Bush administration the Geneva conventions were voided leaving thousands of captives without legal recourse. Torture tactics such as water boarding and psychological torture were reinstated with little emphasis placed on the dignity of the human being. The international community needs a system of justice that incorporates human rights into their legislation, policies and courts.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".