FOR THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY —A REJOINDER TO CHARLES BURTON”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
on the Canada-China bilateral human rights dialogues that was commissioned by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade in 2005 (Burton, 2006, April). This latter study attracted considerable public attention on its eventual public release in May 2006. Shortly thereafter, a report about my study appeared on the front page of The Globe and Mail (York, 2006, June) accompanied by an editorial (“China isn’t listening, ” 2006) urging the government to implement the recommendations of the report.1 Later that year, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Commons Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development began a study of the issues raised in my study that continued into 2007. In 2008 the full Commons Foreign Affairs Committee began to hear evidence relating to the subcommittee's report reflecting consensus of all four political parties on the subcommittee, but to date the Standing Committee on ForeignAffairs and International Development has not tabled its report on the Canada-China bilateral human rights dialogues in Parliament. As a consequence, there has been no bilateral human rights dialogue between Canada and China since the fall of 2005. Related to the high degree of public debate on the previous study, my “Reassessment of
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 | 0.021 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.061 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".