MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W848242454

Human Rights and the New Reality of Climate Change: Adaptation's Limitations in Achieving Climate Justice

2014· article· en· W848242454 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zackary L. Stillings

Bibliographic record

VenueMichigan Journal of International Law · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeHuman rightsAdaptation (eye)Climate justiceEnvironmental resource managementClimate change adaptationPolitical scienceEnvironmental ethicsEnvironmental justiceEconomic JusticeEnvironmental planningLaw and economicsNatural resource economicsSociologyGeographyLawEconomicsEcologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2005, the Inuit of Canada and the United States filed a petition with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights, alleging that their respective governments had violated their human rights by failing to mitigate climate change harms. The Inuit alleged violations of several specific human rights, including the right to enjoy their culture; the right to enjoy and use the lands they have traditionally occupied; the right to use and enjoy their personal property; the right to health; the right to life, physical integrity, and security; the right to their own means of subsistence; and the right to residence and movement and inviolability in the home. Although the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ultimately rejected the petition, the Inuit’s petition marked the beginning of worldwide attempts to recognize the adverse effects of climate change on human rights.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.098
Scholarly communication0.0180.020
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0140.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMichigan Journal of International LawSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207