Introduction to 'Sexual Movements and Gendered Boundaries: Legal Negotiations of the Global and the Local'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This special issue examines the interplay between national and international legal arenas in the governance and regulation of gender and sexuality. For scholars of gender, sexuality and law, there is much to cheer at the international level. We might, for instance, celebrate the unprecedented visibility and activity of both feminist and lesbian and gay movements. The result of that increased profile is a strengthening of policy and laws governing a variety of social justice issues, from violence against women to HIV/AIDS. ‘Women’s rights as human rights’ has become a familiar slogan, bandied about by even the most unlikely international bureaucrat. Similarly, lesbian and gay rights, while hotly resisted by many, have attracted a phalanx of notable supporters. Influential human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have dedicated ‘gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered’ departments, and the complex human rights machinery of the United Nations is increasingly recognizing and responding to human rights violations of lesbian and gay men (Wintemute, 1995; Sanders, 1996; Stychin, 2003; Miller and Vance, 2004). This increased visibility and an apparent erosion of traditional exclusions present opportunities and challenges for scholars and activists alike. For the contributors to this special issue (Bunting, 2005; Munro, 2005; De Vries, 2005; Doezema, 2005; Millbank, 2005) from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands and the UK, this new international climate represents not so much the end point of a progressive narrative, but, rather, the point of entry into the debate – a critical moment for asking new questions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.009 |
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".