MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112040227 · doi:10.5539/jpl.v6n2p83

Challenges of Cultural Relativism and the Future of Feminist Universalism

2013· article· en· W2112040227 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bhabani Shankar Nayak

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Politics and Law · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUniversalismFeminismParallelsHuman rightsRelation (database)Cultural relativismSociologyGender studiesHuman rights movementRelativismPolitical scienceFundamental rightsEpistemologyLawPhilosophyRight to propertyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article seeks to explain and understand the contradictions within universalistic claims of feminism. It also highlights the challenges the Women’s Movement is facing within the philosophical tenets of feminism. The paper begins by defining feminism and universalism from class and cultural points of view in relation to human rights. Then it analyzes not only the tensions between feminism and universalism (in relation to culture and class) but also shows similarities and parallels between them. This paper concludes by reviewing the challenges for Women’s Rights as Human Rights from feminism. Taking into consideration class and cultural factors and challenges to Women’s Universal Human Rights Movement, the paper argues that both must work together by making changes with regard to human rights (women and men) violations not only at the international level but also at national and local levels.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.115
Scholarly communication0.0120.019
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0060.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Politics and LawSame topicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawFrench-language works237,207