Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter investigates the state of refugee law jurisprudence about women. It begins by surveying recent scholarship in this area, highlighting two points: first, that the production of scholarship about women as refugee claimants has slowed; and secondly, that the issues being researched and written about are generally the same as those on offer since the 1990s. Stagnated progress is not to say that decisions about women have not become central to refugee law jurisprudence. Women have indeed moved from the margins to the centre of refugee law. The chapter then analyses elements of the refugee definition in turn, considering how each applies to women. These elements include well-founded fear, being persecuted, reasons for being persecuted, nexus, and exclusion. This structure is a useful rubric for summarizing trends, and isideal for demonstrating that because every element of the refugee definition must be satisfied in order for a claim to be successful, there is a significant tendency for problems to slip from one definitional element to another as the jurisprudence advances. In other words, once it becomes settled law that women can fit in the category of membership in a particular social group, a series of contestations then emerge in another area such as nexus or State protection. This tendency for slippage has driven forward much jurisprudential growth.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".