STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROTECTION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECISION IN LENAHAN (GONZALES) AND ITS APPLICATION IN CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In August, 2011, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights released its decision in Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v United States, a case concerning states’ obligations to use due diligence in responding to domestic violence. The IACHR found that the United States had breached several articles of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man for failing to protect Lenahan and her children from domestic violence, and made wide-reaching recommendations at both the individual and systemic level. This comment will discuss the IACHR decision in Lenahan and analyze its implications for Canada’s compliance with its international obligations towards domestic violence in the judicial, legislative and policy spheres. Focusing on the concept of access to justice as articulated by the IACHR, the analysis will show that Canada may be in violation of its obligations for failing to provide access to justice in the context of domestic violence, and otherwise in violation of its due diligence obligations under international law.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".