MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075679626 · doi:10.1177/000842980303200101

Droits des femmes et religions : Analyse de quelques discours islamiques et catholiques

2003· article· fr· W2075679626 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La problématique des rapports entre les droits des femmes et les religions s'est amplifiée au cours des années 1990. Organisée par les Nations Unies en 1995, la Quatrième Conférence mondiale sur les femmes de Beijing est reconnue comme l'un des lieux d'apparition de discours religieux sur les femmes sur la scène mondiale. Cet article présente une analyse des discours religieux prononcés à cette Conférence et de leurs incidences sur une compréhension des droits des femmes. Un nombre d'États appartenant aux familles islamique et catholique ont défendu l'autorité du religieux pour fonder une vision de la condition des femmes dans le monde et ils ont limité la liberté d'action des femmes dans le domaine de la santé génésique et sexuelle. De là, le débat s'est articulé autour de la priorité à donner aux droits universels des femmes ou aux particularismes culturels et religieux.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.014
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.341 · 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