The Reach and Boundaries of Moral Concerns: Which Way for British Aid in Africa?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The British government’s recent threat to withhold aid from African governments that do not reform legislation banning homosexuality has generated a lot of resentment from African countries where homosexuality is still illegal. With supposedly different social norms and values, Africa’s anti-gay stance is largely seen as being precipitated by its cultural values. Whilst Britain and, more recently, the US and Canada, have all determined that the issue of homosexuality lies at the heart of human rights, many African countries have stressed that it boils down to cultural values and social norms, a notion which many Africans believe Western governments have failed to appreciate. The purpose of this paper is to provide an insight into this issue. It examines whether patterns of particular culture are really incompatible with admitted standards of human rights. The paper also dwells on the debate raging over universal human rights and cultural differences. It concludes that the culture of transnational modernity, one that specifies procedures for collaborative decision-making, conceptions of global social justice, and definitions of gender and sexual roles, stands at risk if it fails to take into account cultural specificity in some regions.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".