Chapter 8. Strengthening Womens International Human Rights Norms in the UK after the Human Rights Act 1998: Lessons from Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feminist discussion recognises that domestic human rights systems operate in a gendered way and impact differently on men and women. Similar gender analyses relate to international law. The post charter Canadian experience is used to read and interpret change and this chapter focuses on how women's rights might develop further in this context. Canada can be seen in this context as a source of other norms and discourses in the UK through both transgovernmentalism and transjudicialism. Canada also serves as a pertinent reminder that an integrated approach is needed to secure women's rights. This chapter focuses on the reception of international women's rights norms into the different constitutional institutions in the UK. Ratification of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women's (CEDAW) protocol will further stimulate awareness and act as a mobilising force for women's rights. Keywords: Canada; CEDAW protocol; domestic human rights; international women's rights; transgovernmentalism; transjudicialism; UK
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".