Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like the Inquisitions in the 1600s, the modern day inquisitions are attempts to secure the supremacy of religious hierarchies in matters of gender, sexuality, and reproduction. The modern day inquisitions jeopardize academic freedoms, particularly of scholars who focus on reproductive health law and ethics, and use hostile stereotypes and social condemnation, among other mechanisms, to control sexuality and reproduction, and to privilege male dominance. In this sense, the overarching barriers to achieving gender justice in this hemisphere are the modern day inquisitions. \n \nThis article based on a keynote speech of the Conference on Gender Justice in the Americas, graciously hosted by the University of Miami School of Law, February 23-25, 2011, attempts: to take stock of some of the past achievements in applying human rights and constitutional provisions to protect the dignity of different sexualities, reduce violence, and promote reproductive and sexual health, to explore some of the lessons learned in applying human rights and constitutional provisions to these issues, and finally, to think about how best to face challenges ahead and to strengthen networks to create better synergies in our research, teaching, and advocacy to improve gender justice in the Americas.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".