LES PROTECTIONS DU DROIT À LA REPRODUCTION DES FEMMES EN SITUATION DE HANDICAP EN DROIT INTERNATIONAL: LES ÉCUEILS DE LEURS MISES EN APPLICATION: Portrait croisé des États-Unis et du droit international
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on forced sterilization of women living with a disability. Going back to the start of the 20th Century in the United States, the evolution of this violation will be traced back to this day. From the eugenics school of thought to the women’s liberation movement, the emphasis will be put on the women ignored for each period. Parallels will then be traced between the evolution of mentalities and of civil society in relation to the rights of persons living with disabilities, more specifically women, and the development of international law and two international legal instruments, which are the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women(CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities(CRPD). From a first convention on the protection of women’s rights that is rather conservative, to the broader work of the said Convention’s Committee, the article will also look at the major progress for the rights of women living with a handicap within the CRPD. It is now up to States, such as the Unites States, to adopt their principles.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".