Advancing sexual health through human rights: The role of the law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the International Conference on Population and Development, definitions of sexuality and sexual health have been greatly elaborated alongside widely accepted recognition that sexual health requires respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights. Considerable progress has also been made in enacting or changing laws that affect sexuality and sexual health, in line with human rights standards. These measures include legal guarantees against non-discrimination and violence, decriminalisation of consensual sexual conduct and guaranteeing availability, accessibility, acceptability and quality of sexual health information and services to all. Such legal actions have had positive effects on health and specifically on sexual health, particularly for marginalised populations. Yet in all regions of the world, laws still exist which jeopardise health, including sexual health, and violate human rights. In order to ensure accountability for the rights and health of their populations, states have an obligation to bring their laws into line with international, regional and national human rights standards. These rights-based legal guarantees, while insufficient alone, are essential for effective systems of accountability, achieving positive sexual health outcomes and the respect and protection of human rights.
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 | 0.039 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.121 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".