Mulki Al-Sharmani, dir, Feminist Activism, Women’s Rights And Legal Reform, Londres, Zed Books, 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En tant qu’institution sociale au caractere normatif et performatif, le droit peut etre utilise pour creer, contester ou ebranler les idees et les pratiques d’une societe. En ce sens, l’arene juridique a depuis toujours ete un terrain de premier choix pour les militantes feministes dans l’atteinte d’une reelle egalite entre les genres, que ce soit en denoncant l’oppression du systeme juridique ou en utilisant celui-ci comme outil de transformation. Au dela du processus de creation et d’implementation de lois progressives et de l’analyse des defis qui y surgissent, c’est l’interrelation entre l’activisme feministe et les reformes juridiques, ainsi que le role discursif du droit, qui est aborde dans Feminist Activism, Women’s Rights and Legal Reform1. L’ouvrage, dirige par Mulki Al-Sharmani, chercheuse en residence a l’Academie de Finlande et chargee de cours a la Faculte de theologie de l’Universite d’Helsinki, relate le processus de reformes nationales dans huit pays (Palestine, Yemen du Sud, Egypte, Bangladesh, Iran, Maroc, Bresil, Ghana). Chacun des huit chapitres expose les strategies et tactiques empruntees par les activistes feministes dans l’atteinte d’une plus grande equite juridique (particulierement en droit de la famille et la legislation concernant la violence conjugale), tout en identifiant les differents facteurs qui ont permis (ou, au contraire, empeche) le processus de reforme legale.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.006 |
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".