How gains for SRHR in the UN have remained possible in a changing political climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As right-wing populist movements make electoral gains around the world, one might expect that resultant policy and legislative reversals against sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) would be mirrored by a similar backlash in United Nations (UN) human rights negotiations. Yet the past five years have seen unprecedented advances for SRHR within the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), treaty bodies, and special procedures. In this article, we provide an overview of SRHR gains and setbacks within the HRC and analyse their broader significance, particularly as socially conservative nation states and non-governmental organisations seek to challenge them. We analyse how states have advanced SRHR in the HRC and examine efforts that states which oppose SRHR have undertaken to limit these advances. In an increasingly hostile political climate, the inter-related legal, technical, and political mechanisms through which human rights are advanced within the UN has helped to mitigate the effects of rapid political reversals. Additionally, the HRC's emphasis on previously agreed language helps dampen significant changes in resolutions on SRHR.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".