Research Paper for Australian Human Rights Commission (Racial Discrimination Team): Developing a community centred, engagement framework for policy reform
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This submission examines existing literature on human rights-based approaches to guide the AHRC in the development of its Anti-Racism Framework. Specifically, it reviews available literature in five comparable jurisdictions: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom (‘UK’), and the United States of America (‘US’). For each jurisdiction, the submission draws upon sources on human rights-based policy co-design to identify, describe, and analyse demonstrated ways to meaningfully engage communities beyond the ‘usual suspects’ when pushing for reform. It provides insight into innovative approaches to policy co-design, evaluation mechanisms, evidence for success, challenges, mitigation strategies, and similarities and differences across policy making processes within Australia and comparable jurisdictions. These insights are organised in the form of an overview of human rights-based approaches including at least one significant case study for each jurisdiction.
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 | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.007 |
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".