Human Rights of Women and Challenges in Globalisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In larger context human rights refer to those inalienable rights that a person is entitled to enjoy irrespective of his/her nationality, caste, creed, sex, colour, religion, income or any other socioeconomic divisive category. Human rights are those entitlements which an individual owns just because of his/her existence as a human being. The theoretical roots of human rights can be traced back to the history of ancient and medieval times in India as well as in the Western liberal and humanitarian philosophy. Both these roots have a considerable appeal of promoting human dignity. Human life is given a distinctive weight over other animals in most societies precisely because we are capable of cultivating the quality of our lives. Clearly both-human dignity and quality of life have negatively affected women’s human rights especially with the coming of globalization to a large number of countries. In the name of Structural Adjustment policies, publicly-funded health services education and child care have contributed to maternal mortality, made education unavailable for poorer children, particularly girls. The paper aims to examine the challenges of women in globalization in regards to their human rights in larger interest of women community as a whole with focus on developing countries or India like to give them a life with equality and human dignity.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".