MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536518012

Combating Discrimination Based on Sex and Gender

2009· article· en· W1536518012 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca J. Cook, Simone Cusack

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against WomenMandateTreatyJurisprudenceNormativePolitical scienceConventionHuman rightsLawProtocol (science)Law and economicsInternational human rights lawSociologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter provides an introduction to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Optional Protocol). It examines the object and purpose of CEDAW and considers the obligations imposed on States Parties to protect and promote women’s rights. The Chapter also examines the role and mandate of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the UN treaty body responsible for monitoring States Parties’ compliance with CEDAW. In so doing, it analyses the Committee’s key jurisprudence under the Optional Protocol. Despite significant normative developments in guaranteeing women’s human rights and fundamental freedoms, intractable forms of discrimination against women persist, including gender stereotyping. The chapter concludes by examining some of the challenges that lay ahead for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and the realization of substantive equality.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207