Judicial attitudes to gender justice in India : the contribution of judicial training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law related strategies have played an important part in the campaigns of women’s organisations to achieve greater equality and social justice within their societies. These campaigns have focussed on the role of the nation state to improve the rights of women across a wide range of areas such as reproduction, property ownership, prevention of violence and employment protection. These campaigns have increasingly been informed by the international women’s rights discourse. Many women’s organisations use the processes associated with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women to put pressure on their governments (Connors, 1996; Charlesworth and Chinkin, 2000: ch 7). One method, which has proven significant, has been the submission by non-governmental organisations (ngos) of alternative reports on CEDAW. For instance, the Indian ngos published the report which they submitted in January 2000 to shadow the Indian government’s submission to the UN committee (National Alliance of Women, 2000). Some of the campaigns have led to law reforms (see for instance Vishaka vs. State of Rajasthan 1997 SCC 384). However the implementation of reforms through the administration of justice systems have often proven highly problematic. The judiciary is seen at best as indifferent or, at worst, hostile to developing a legal culture based on gender justice (Sakshi, 1996). Reformers in a number of common law jurisdictions have seen training judges in gender issues as one way of tackling this problem. However such training presents considerable challenges for both educators and recipients and raises a range of questions. Some of these relate to judicial independence and others concern the effectiveness of such activities in bringing about recognisable improvements in gender justice. I will draw on the debates relating to judicial training in the US, Canada, Australia, and England as well as the specific experiences of gender initiatives in common law countries in order to set our project in India into a wider context.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".