Bibliographic record
Abstract
International law attention to lesbians, gay men and transgendered individuals begins with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights striking down the sodomy law in Northern Ireland in the Dudgeon case in 1981. Since that time the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights have all focused on the right to “respect for private life”, though the Lustig-Prean decision of 1999 used that right to prohibit employment discrimination in the military. While the rulings of the separate European Court of Justice have been slow to evolve, there have been significant developments in the Council of Europe and the European Union, notably the provision in the Treaty of Amsterdam which has led to the requirement of anti-discrimination laws among member States. In the United Nations system the decision of the U.N. Human Rights Committee in Toonen v. Australia was the same kind of breakthrough, in an almost identical case, as was the Dudgeon decision. Additionally it ruled that discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” was a form of discrimination on the basis of sex. The decision has resulted in the Human Rights Committee questioning various states, including the United States, about their criminal laws and their provisions against discrimination. In the Charter bodies of the United Nations, such as the Commission on Human Rights, there has been no real progress. In the large human rights conferences, issues of sexual orientation were raised at the Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, in the IV World Conference on Women in Beijing and in the Beijing+5 meeting at the General Assembly in 2000.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".