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 OpenAlexaff
Joanna N. Erdman

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.035
Scholarly communication0.0190.009
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReproductive Health MattersSame topicEuropean and International Law StudiesFrench-language works237,207