MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2281194592 · doi:10.1017/s0003055401912018

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.

2001· article· en· W2281194592 on OpenAlexaff
Fiona Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Political Science Review · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOppressionHuman rightsPanacea (medicine)ConventionMultinational corporationDemocracyIdeologyPolitical scienceSociologyLaw and economicsPolitical economyLawPoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.305 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Political Science ReviewSame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207