Realising the ICPD 20 years later: Shifting the paradigms for research and education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The extent to which people can enjoy their sexual and reproductive health is invariably intertwined with issues of disadvantage, inequality and human rights. Increased conservatism, lack of political will, outright resistance and the limited incorporation of human rights norms and standards into sexual and reproductive health policies and programmes are central challenges. Building capacity and skills to understand and address the range of issues raised by sexual and reproductive health and rights is of critical importance. Committed to the principles underlying the ICPD agenda and heavily involved in research and education, with a shared desire to bring global attention to the need for gender- and rights-oriented research and training in sexual and reproductive health, a group of us came together to form the Rights-Oriented Research and Education (RORE) Network for Sexual and Reproductive Health at the end of 2012. To generate dialogue, discussion and action, we propose what we mean by a human rights orientation to sexual and reproductive health and what we believe is needed going forward to achieve a human rights orientation to sexual and reproductive health education and research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".