Stakeholder approaches to human rights and development in the commercial context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human rights, community development, and commercial development have the potential to be mutually reinforcing at the international, state, and local levels. Stakeholders’ approaches to human rights in commercial development contexts are key to unlocking this potential. This thesis analyses commercial energy projects in Bangladesh, Kenya, and Canada, in order to discover how relationships between stakeholders may affect a state’s ability to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights obligations. The analysis pays special attention to stakeholders that are most likely to have their rights violated (indigenous and local communities), and stakeholders that tend to abuse human rights in the name of commercial development (corporate developers and the state). Drawing from the case studies, this thesis proposes a tripartite taxonomy of approaches to human rights and development in commercial contexts. This taxonomy describes stakeholder dispositions and actions that have the potential to lead to compatible or conflicting relationships. The third approach within the taxonomy, a Development Based Approach to Human Rights, is a new contribution to the field, proposing human rights fulfillment as a primary objective for all stakeholders in commercial development projects. This thesis comes to the conclusion that compatible stakeholder relations that utilise this approach in commercial contexts, tend to bring about the respect, protection, and fulfillment of human rights alongside community and commercial development.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".