History of the FIGO Committee for Women's Sexual and Reproductive Rights
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Executive Board of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) approved the establishment of a FIGO Study Group on Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Rights at its meeting in Cape Town on October 16, 1998. The timing was significant, since the year 1998 marked the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. The year 1999 would mark the 20th Anniversary of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Furthermore, the 1990 UN International Convention on the Rights of the Child confirmed that the human rights of girls and women are an invaluable and indivisible part of human rights, to be respected and promoted not only in the public sphere but also in the private sphere of the home and family. A number of UN conferences on human rights are relevant to this initiative, including the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in 1979; the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989; the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo in 1994; and the ICPDq5, Beijingq5. The Study Group was constituted under the umbrella of the WHOyFIGO Alliance for Women’s Health (The Alliance includes FIGO, WHO, ICM, IPPF, UNFPA, UNICEF, and World Bank).
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 | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".