Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsafe abortion is one of the leading causes of maternal mortality in Africa. In international human rights law, there are two possible approaches to tackling the problem of unsafe abortion. One is to advocate the right of privacy, which means states must refrain from interfering in women's abortion decisions; the other is to advocate the right to life of women, which stresses the duty of states to take affirmative measures to minimise the consequences of unsafe abortion. African societies are communal and duty is the central element in them. The African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights reflects communal values by stressing the duty of individuals to help their communities. Unlike other human rights documents, it does not have a right of privacy provision. This paper focuses mainly on the right to life and discusses the interpretation of this right for women, as applied to unsafe abortion, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Advocating states' duties in ensuring women's right to life, to minimise the consequences of unsafe abortion, is more consistent with duty-based African communal values than the right of privacy.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".