Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights of Women: A Rights-based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violations of women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights are frequent all over the world. Women’s sexual and reproductive health is related to multiple human rights. The term ‘rights-based’ has become increasingly linked to the concept of a more comprehensive approach to sexual and reproductive rights of women around the globe. The rights-based perspective is derived from the treaties, pacts and other international commitments that recognize and reinforce human rights, including the sexual and reproductive rights of women. We conducted an extensive review of the guidelines, frameworks, research reports and published articles that have been cited as informing the rights-based approach. The findings of the review highlights what is meant by sexual and reproductive health and rights by the stakeholders, why this matter is important, and what can be done. It demands more partnerships with human rights, women’s and other civil society organizations, increased number of successful national policies, initiatives and/or legislative changes, increased budget and other resources at national and/or local community level, mass communication and engagement of men to promote and advance women’s sexual and reproductive health and rights. Achievement of gender equality is very crucial, because it is a human right that advances women’s empowerment; and is interlinked with sexual and reproductive health and rights.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".