Globalizing Concern for Women’s Human Rights: The Failure of the American Model. By Diana G. Zoelle. New York: St. Martin’s, 2000. 169p. $49.95.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is difficult to argue with Diana Zoelle's claim that liberal democracy, as conceived and developed in the United States, is a problematic model in globalizing concern for women's human rights. Moreover, when she suggests that U.S. ratifi- cation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), although not a panacea for the attainment of full equality, would constitute an important step toward alleviating wom- en's oppression, she is probably correct. Finally, although her claim that the potential currently exists to accord human rights to all people in a world community that is less torn apart by bipolar enmity, less subverted by ideological ten- sions, and less compromised by the economic priorities of multinational corporations is probably not correct, one can- not help wishing that it were.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.008 |
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".