MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2285390289

The Question of Justice and Women's Rights

2001· article· en· W2285390289 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Annika Thiem

Bibliographic record

VenueThirdspace · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyEconomic JusticeSociologyPoliticsIdeologyRetributive justiceMeaning (existential)Argument (complex analysis)Interpretation (philosophy)Political scienceLawPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What does it mean to do justice and especially to do justice to women? This article examines the difficulties of interpreting justice and women's rights on the international plane. The problems arise from the fundamental tension between the theoretical epistemological field and the practical real life scene, since the mediation between them does not reduce to a neat theoretical clarification of a general meaning of justice that then can be practically applied to our perceived reality to yield a certain set of political strategies. The argument presented here shows that the two planes interdepend and that a meaning of justice always necessarily is contextually bound and yet in its limitedness is always open for contestation and that it needs to remain contested in order not to slip into fundamentalism and ideological fanaticism. The context for this argument is the international political struggle for women's rights in the specific case of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). With this document as a starting point, it is possible to enter into a discussion of the questions of relativism vs. universalism, of a concept of democratic discourse, and of hermeneutical guidelines for the interpretation of the meaning of justice for women. This article therefore starts with this concrete historical and practical context and then asks whether it is possible and legitimate to claim a universal notion of justice or whether there can only be locally restricted interpretations that have to remain incommensurable with each other. The question that follows from this inquiry is how the notion of democratic discourse has to be shifted and opened up to allow for productive, fair, and inclusive deliberation about women's rights policies. This, however, cannot pursued without accounting for and contesting the hermeneutical guidelines that underlie the discourse and that cannot only be procedural but must be material as well, for example, as the capabilities approach by Nussbaum (2000) provides.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.102
Scholarly communication0.0140.015
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.318 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueThirdspaceSame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207