The Imperilled Right to Life, Femicide Crisis in South Africa: Critical Considerations for Legislators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Femicide is one of the most atrocious acts that are principal causes of premature deaths of women and girls who experience gender-based violence in South Africa. These violent acts that are mainly perpetrated by their male counterparts include inter alia, physical, emotional, psychological and economic violence. Constitutionally, everyone has the right to life, however; the mass killings of women in the hands of males, categorically implies clear inadequacies of the state apparatus to guarantee this valuable human right to women and girls in South Africa. Consulted literature reveals that little has been done in terms of scholarly interrogation of the right to life for women against the heinous femicide crimes committed with no regard for women’s human rights in South Africa. Aim: to explore the deprivation of right to life of those who have fallen victims to the national crisis of femicide. Methodology: for the purpose of this article, the author adopted a qualitative research approach where a variety of non-empirical methods and techniques were employed. The methodological inclination entails a desktop analysis by a means of intensive literature study where information produced has been scholarly scrutinised through a process of intellectual analysis, categorisation, integration, reflection and synthesis where meanings were ascribed to the main themes of this article. Findings: It has been deduced that there are legislative shortcomings that need urgent lawmakers’ attention in order to protect women’s right to life. This implies that femicide law is vital to curb the spate of arbitrary killings of women and girls in South Africa. Additional measures to consider include school-curriculum pre-emptive programmes and community-based advocacy programmes to create a society that honours women’s right to life.
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 | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".