Bibliographic record
Abstract
In assessing the effectiveness of international human rights law to achieve meaningful gender equality, Lisa Baldez and Debra DeLaet offer two complementary yet different case studies. De Laet argues that despite the rhetoric and promise of international women's rights law, such codification has yet to achieve ‘systemic progress’ to address gender inequality. DeLaet concludes that progress is most often attributable to national law reform and enforcement rather than global legalism. Picking up on the importance of national context, Baldez comes to a different conclusion in examining the case of Cuba's submissions to Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. Both papers point not only to the limitations and potential of international law but also to the limitations of feminist strategies that emphasize law reform at the exclusion of other non-juridical strategies for social change. As I read the papers together, I am reminded of the need to see global legal strategies as embedded in and alongside other strategies for social change. I argue that, despite its frailties, international law remains a useful resource for national or grass-roots feminist strategies for positive social change.
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 | 0.021 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.051 | 0.059 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".