Bibliographic record
Abstract
404 Introduction 404 I. Identifying the United States’ Obligations Under International Law 411 II. Identifying Pregnant Women’s Human Rights 413 A. The Right to Health 415 1. The Right to Health Includes Reproductive Rights .. 416 2. Evidence-Based Care Promotes the Highest Attainable Standard of Health 418 3. Maternal Mortality Is the Ultimate Violation of the Right to Health 423 B. The Right to Autonomy 425 1. Women’s Human Rights Should Preclude Recognition of Fetal Rights 426 2. Interventions in Pregnancy Require Informed Consent 429 3. Respect for Autonomy Does Not Negate Duties to Minimize Risks to Health 436 C. The Right to Freedom from Discrimination 439 III. Respecting, Protecting, and Fulfilling Pregnant Women’s Human Rights 441 A. Addressing Past Grievances: Redress and Reparations for Violations 444 * J.D., Lewis & Clark Law School. Thank you to the facilitators and participants of the May 2011 CEDAW for Change Institute hosted by the Women’s Human Rights Education Institute in Toronto, who sparked my interest in the concept of substantive equality and inspired me with their local efforts to put human rights into practice. DUNCAN (DO NOT DELETE) 2/17/2015 8:21 AM 404 OREGON LAW REVIEW [Vol. 93, 403 B. Preventing Future Violations: Correcting Systemic Failures 446 C. Eliminating Discrimination: Removing Barriers to an Effective Human Rights-Based Approach 448 D. Developing Accountability: Improving Monitoring and Evaluation of State Obligations 449 Conclusion 450
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".