Gender Budgeting as a Means to Implement the Maputo Protocol’s Obligations to Provide Budgetary Resources to Realise Women’s Human Rights in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Articles 4(2)(i), 10(3) and 26(2) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) impose an obligation on states to provide sufficient budgetary resources to realise women’s human rights. Despite the fact that several African countries have ratified the Maputo Protocol, there is still insufficient budgetary allocation to realise women’s human rights. This article presents gender budgeting as a step that African states can take towards the provision of sufficient resources to realise women’s human rights. It studies the concept of gender budgeting and its objectives to demonstrate the link between gender budgeting and the provision of budgetary resources to realise women’s human rights. It also studies the challenges that states face in the adoption of gender budgeting and concludes that despite the fact that there are challenges, they can be overcome if states show the required will to do so.
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 | 0.060 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".