MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992667825 · doi:10.7202/1016489ar

Les droits reproductifs, de la Conférence du Caire aux villages yucatèques

2013· article· fr· W1992667825 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arlette Gautier

Bibliographic record

VenueLien social et Politiques · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le Mexique a ratifié en 1994 le Programme d’action du Caire, selon lequel les politiques démographiques doivent assurer aux individus l’accès aux droits reproductifs. Une recherche menée en 2004-2005 dans la région nord du Yucatán s’est intéressée à la mise en oeuvre de cet engagement dans les politiques et programmes de santé mexicain et yucatèque par les acteurs locaux, notamment les ONG qui l’ont impulsée, les institutions et le personnel de santé. Telle qu’elle est menée, cette politique reproduit une vision médicale qui assigne les femmes à une faiblesse congénitale due à leur sexe, tout en les utilisant largement comme main-d’oeuvre quasi gratuite et en réintroduisant parfois le pouvoir masculin sur leur corps. Les femmes utilisent certes les opportunités offertes par cette politique pour réduire leur mortalité et choisir leur fécondité, mais certaines résistent à la médicalisation en faisant suivre leurs grossesses par des sages-femmes traditionnelles. Les hommes enquêtés ont une conception plus curative que préventive de la santé et ils refusent d’être intégrés dans des programmes, lesquels les ciblent peu, d’ailleurs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLien social et PolitiquesSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207