Changing the World: The Ethical Impulse and International Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dismantling Your House with Dignity: Ethics, Justice and the InternationalThere is currently, in rich countries and poor, a groundswell of activism, activity, protest and popular engagement directed at creating a better world.Everywhere we look, people are singing, dancing, shopping (or not shopping), blogging, protesting, writing, performing, sponsoring and volunteering in the name of global justice.It is obvious that people care.This ethical impulse is coming from both the Third and First worlds, or if you prefer, from the both the Global South and the Global North.It is democratic, and not confined to young idealists and old hippies.As a human being, this makes me optimistic.I am grateful for people's energy and engagement.But as an international lawyer and scholar, the political shape of this ethical impulse and the institutional form to which it ultimately translates gives me pause.The precise reasons for my unease recently became clearer to me at an exhibition at the Brunei Gallery at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London in 2011, which brought together a photographic essay by Robert Wallis with works by the Tribal Women's Artist Collective from North Central India. 1The exhibition, called 'A Disappearing World', centred on the battle currently being waged between the non-Hindu tribal people in what is now Jharkhand, and the resource companies who have been granted mining rights by the Indian state.These rights have been granted over areas where this group of people have been living since well before the existence of the Indian state, since before colonisation, even before the idea of India.Much of the exhibition was devoted to chronicling the dispossession of the tribal people by the mining companies and the struggle to secure land titles and compensation that activists, both Indian and foreign, were waging on behalf of those peoples.As I walked around the exhibition, I thought about the number of clashes like this one occurring all over the world.In Brazil, China, Canada, the US, Myanmar, Colombia, South Africa, Indonesia, West Papua -even here in Australia -extractive industries and indigenous people are meeting every day in ways that will determine the fate of the indigenous peoples as well as the world's valleys, hills, forests and waterways.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
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 | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.145 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.030 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".