Twenty Years of Triumph, Trial and Tribulation: Reflections on the Mechanism of the African Commission’s Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract On the occasion of its 25th Ordinary Session held in Bujumbura, Burundi, from 26 April to 5 May 1999, the African Commission adopted resolution ACHPR/res.38 (XXV) 99 on the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa (SRRWA), retrospectively with the appointment taking effect from 31 October 1998. This means that the mechanism of the SRRWA is roughly making twenty years since its initial inception. Coming of age and time, the twenty years of existence of the mechanism of the SRRWA makes it not only one of the oldest (and perhaps most successful) mechanisms of the African Commission; but one that has been the subject of tremendous triumph, trial and tribulation. Over the past two decades, the mechanism has been a product of both progression and regression. By and large the mechanism of the SRRWA has played an appreciable role in the advancement of women’s rights on the African continent. This article aims at taking stock of the achievements and failures of the 20 years of the work of the SRRWA. Although taking pride in the achievements of the mechanism, this article argues for incremental reforms within the mechanism, including the refining of the terms of reference of the mandate; the need for closer cooperation with global and regional systems mechanisms, women at grassroots including women’s rights movements, and mutual support from civil society organisations.
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 | 0.044 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".