MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977115066 · doi:10.1016/s0968-8080(14)44798-0

Procedural abortion rights: Ireland and the European Court of Human Rights

2014· article· en· W1977115066 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueReproductive Health Matters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEuropean and International Law Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJurisprudenceAbortionHuman rightsPolitical scienceLawIrishHumanitiesObligationAbortion lawEthnologySociologyFamily planningPopulationPhilosophyResearch methodology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Irish Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act seeks to clarify the legal ground for abortion in cases of risk to life, and to create procedures to regulate women’s access to services under it. This article explores the new law as the outcome of an international human rights litigation strategy premised on state duties to implement abortion laws through clear standards and procedural safeguards. It focuses specifically on the Irish law reform and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, including A. B. and C. v. Ireland (2010). The article examines how procedural rights at the international level can engender domestic law reform that limits or expands women’s access to lawful abortion services, serving conservative or progressive ends.RésuméEn Irlande, la loi sur la protection de la vie pendant la grossesse cherche à préciser les motifs légaux d’avortement en cas de risque pour la vie et créer des procédures pour réguler l’accès des femmes aux services en vertu de la loi. Cet article examine la nouvelle législation comme aboutissement d’une stratégie de litige relative aux droits de l’homme internationaux se fondant sur l’obligation des États à appliquer la législation sur l’avortement avec des normes claires et des garanties procédurales. Il se centre précisément sur la réforme de la loi irlandaise et la jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, notamment l’affaire A. B. et C. contre Irlande (2010). L’article analyse comment les droits procéduraux au niveau international peuvent engendrer une réforme du droit national qui limite ou élargit l’accès des femmes à des services d’avortement légal, guidée par des objectifs conservateurs ou progressistes.ResumenEn Irlanda, la Ley de Protección de la Vida durante el Embarazo busca aclarar el fundamento jurídico para tener un aborto en casos de riesgo a la vida, y crear procedimientos para regular el acceso de las mujeres a los servicios bajo esta ley. Este artículo explora la nueva ley como el resultado de una estrategia de litigio en derechos humanos internacionales basada en los deberes estatales de aplicar las leyes referentes al aborto mediante normas claras y salvaguardias procesales. Se enfoca específicamente en la reforma de las leyes irlandesas y en la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, que incluye A. B. y C. contra Irlanda (2010). El artículo examina cómo los derechos procesales a nivel internacional pueden engendrar una reforma nacional de leyes, que limita o amplía el acceso de las mujeres a servicios de aborto legal, con fines conservadores o progresistas.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score0.802

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it