The Universality of Human Rights and Homosexuality: A Focus on Gender Issues in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Right from the evolutionary point of human rights, there have been doubts on its ontological existence; even when it is believed to conceptually exist, there have been doubt to its applicability across places and spaces within the contexts of their socio-cultural, political and economic realities. Hence, the universalism and relativism of human rights remain a controversial discourse both at the local and the international realms. In spite of the controversy obfuscating the universality of the generality of human rights, some can be said to be universal such as right to life, right to conscience, thought and religion; and right to non discrimination. Although these are not without problems at the level of interpretation and application to some realities in diverse places across the world. While others have discussed gender equalities as human rights phenomenon in the African context, it is scarcely or not discussed along homosexual rights. This paper considers the universalism of human rights within the context of African realities using homosexual rights and gender equality as case study. It focuses on the ubiquitous but predisposing factors responsible for the rejection of gender equality and homosexual rights in Africa, from the cultural, religious, legal and globalisation contexts.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".