MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7055838985

The Delivery of Human Rights: Essays in honour of Professor Sir Nigel Rodley

2010· article· en· W7055838985 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Design and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHonourHuman rightsCommissionInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsTortureInternational lawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Delivery of Human Rights reflects on two overlapping issues in international human rights law: how can existing norms be better implemented and effected, and how can other branches of international law or other international actors be used so as to provide an improved delivery of those norms. Rather than simply looking at the content of the rights, this book will also explore how the framers' intention that individuals benefit from the norms can be achieved. The book is written and published in honour of Professor Sir Nigel Rodley KBE. It celebrates his career as an academic and practitioner in the area of human rights. Professor Rodley acted as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture from 1993 to 2001 and is currently a member of the UN Human Rights Committee. He is also a member of the International Commission of Jurists. Since 2001 he has been a Member of the UN Human Rights Committee, established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 1998 he was knighted in the Queen's New Year's Honours list for services to Human Rights and International Law and in 2000 he received an honorary LLD from Dalhousie University. He is Professor and Chair of the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, having taught there since 1990.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0040.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser Design and Applications→French-language works237,207→