MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022246378 · doi:10.1080/07399330590905594

Women's Rights and Health: The Case of Oromo Women in Ethiopia

2005· review· en· W2022246378 on OpenAlexaff
Begna Dugassa

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Care For Women International · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityEmpowermentHuman rightsHealth promotionQuality of life (healthcare)Economic growthRight to healthPromotion (chess)Health educationHealth policyPolitical scienceSociologyMedicinePublic relationsNursingPublic healthLawPoliticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), for which we have no cure or vaccination, is the major health problem in Ethiopia. This epidemic generally has affected poor communities and women. To contain this epidemic, the empowerment of women is essential. In fact, the current working definition of health by the World Health Organization (WHO) makes social well-being a part of everyday living, which is an essential dimension of the quality of life. The concept of quality of life means an opportunity to make choices and even change the situation one is in. Here, the concepts of health and human rights intersect, because of the quality of life requires freedom of choice, dignity and respect. Dignity, the right to access basic education and information, as well as the right to life are the major elements of human rights. It is for that purpose that health promotion is intended to enable people to increase their control over determinants of health and thereby improve their health. Women's involvement in outlining the agendas of health promotion is vital to achieve the desired goals. In this article I examine human rights violations in Ethiopia and the lost opportunities for Oromo women to make choices in life within the framework of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights (UDHR).

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.358 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Care For Women InternationalSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207