MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996088303 · doi:10.1163/17087384-12340040

Legal Framework to Gender-Based Violence, Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights of Indigenous Women in Cameroon

2019· article· en· W2996088303 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patrick Ageh Agejo

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Legal Studies · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousReproductive healthLegislationPsychological interventionGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceReproductive rightsSustainable developmentEconomic growthHuman rightsAffect (linguistics)SocioeconomicsSociologyEnvironmental healthMedicineLawNursingPopulationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Men and women have different health profiles which necessitate different health needs, as a result of their biology and their distinct status in society. Discrimination and harmful traditional practices in many societies in the global south further affect the reproductive health of indigenous women. The paper will highlight discrimination against women in patriarchal indigenous communities in Cameroon. The paper focuses on violations that affect women’s reproductive health. The paper will discuss these violations in light of the country’s commitment to Sustainable Development Goal No. 3 on good health and well-being and Goal No. 5 on gender equality. The paper will also highlight the national and international laws addressing the right to the reproductive health of indigenous women. It will also examine gender-sensitive interventions, legislation and policies put in place by the indigenous community and the Government of Cameroon if any. The paper will end with conclusion and suggestions/recommendations on ways to improve the reproductive health of indigenous women in Cameroon.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.298 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Legal StudiesSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207