CEDAW and the Jurisprudence of UN Human Rights Mechanisms: Women's Human Rights in the Context of Religion and Culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les problemes inherents au patriarcat religieux dans les regimes traditionnels, (le judaisme, le christianisme, l’islamisme) qui posent face aux droits humains les defis ideologiques entre eux et les groupes internationaux qui font la promotion des droits humains laics (CEDEF et les autres). L’auteure admet que les mecanismes a l’interieur des Nations Unis n’ont pas essaye de creer une synergie entre la liberte religieuse ou la croyance et l’egalite entre les hommes et les femmes. Ces deux domaines, souvent conflictuels rendent les femmes particulierement vulnerables. L’auteure preconise un regime d’une “empathie normative universelle” qui sera reussi seulement si les droits humains laics seront alignes sur le progres en hermeneutique des femmes qui installeront l’egalite dans leur religion.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".