Accommodating Women's Differences Under the Women's Anti-Discrimination Convention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to explore how the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (the Women's Anti-Discrimination Convention) can be more effectively applied to accommodate the differences women experience in the abortion context. Accommodating differences in the abortion context requires states to move beyond the myopic focus on the legality of the actual procedure to understand how the health care system neglects women, how antiabortion laws expropriate women's bodies and lives through forced childbearing and childrearing, and how they diminish women's moral agency. States are required not only to accommodate women's biological differences, but also to redress the dignity-denying treatment to which women are subjected in their various pathways to abortion. Equality requires that states address the discriminatory treatment in the health care system, and address socio-cultural norms to ensure that all women have equal and dignified access to services that respond to their particular health need, and that respect their moral agency.
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 | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".