The Human Rights Framing of Maternal Health: a Strategy for Politicization or a Path to Genuine Empowerment?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Every year, more than half a million women worldwide die from complications arising from pregnancy and childbirth. Most of these deaths are preventable, examples of what Amartya Sen calls "remediable injustices" (2009, p. vii). The urgency of the issue became evident when, in 2000, governments around the globe decided to commit to "reduce maternal mortality" by three-quarters by the year 2015, making it one of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Despite sincere and combined efforts by governments, nongovernmental organizations, and various global agencies, the goal of reducing maternal mortality by three-quarters will not be met by most countries—especially developing ones—by 2015. The struggle to improve maternal health conditions globally has led many scholars and practitioners to assert that maternal health is not simply a public health or development issue. Rather, maternal health and preventable maternal deaths are human rights issues because such deaths result from a range of factors that include but are not limited to gender inequality and discrimination, lack of adequate recognition of women's right to health, and insufficient acknowledgment of women's right to life, as well as various political, economic, social, and cultural barriers that limit women's access to appropriate interventions (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2008; Dasgupta, 2010; Hunt & Bueno De Mesquita, 2010; Yamin, 2010; Yamin & Maine, 1999).KeywordsMaternal HealthMaternal MortalityMaternal DeathPublic Health Care FacilityUniversal Health CoverageThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".