MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921515974 · doi:10.21827/5bf3ea1966ab8

Migrant Rights in International Law: Exploring the Gendered Experiences of Migrant Women and Girls

2019· article· en· W2921515974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jenny Poon

Bibliographic record

VenueGroningen Journal of International Law · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersecutionHuman rightsRefugeeImmigrationAgency (philosophy)Gender studiesGirlConventionVulnerability (computing)Political scienceDestiny (ISS module)SociologyLawPoliticsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migrants are people who choose to move from one place to another to seek a better life. However, when these people move across international borders as a result of fleeing from a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and not based on choice, they are forced migrants. This article examines the situations when women and girls move across international borders in order to flee from persecution or massive violations of human rights linked to gender violence. The article argues that women and girls experience vulnerabilities at all stages of the migration cycle not only because they are forced migrants fleeing from life-threatening situations, but also as a result of violations of their human rights based on gendered experience. An examination of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada’s Chairperson’s Guideline No 4 shows that, when these instruments are misapplied or not considered, the vulnerabilities of migrant women and girls may be exacerbated by such misapplication or non-consideration. This article ends by concluding that a focus should not be upon a woman or girl’s vulnerability, but on her agency to be self-reliant and resilient towards her own destiny.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGroningen Journal of International LawSame topicInternational Human Rights and Reproductive LawFrench-language works237,207