Les protections du droit à la reproduction des femmes en situation de handicap en droit international : les écueils de leurs mises en application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude porte sur la stérilisation forcée des femmes en situation de handicap. Le but est, en premier lieu, d’identifier les normes du droit international, notamment de la Convention pour l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination à l’égard des femmes (CEDEF) et de la Convention relative aux droits des personnes handicapées 1 (CDPH), qui protègent le droit de fonder une famille et de ne pas subir de stérilisation forcée des femmes en situation de handicap. Ces protections seront ensuite mises en contraste avec la façon dont les femmes en situation de handicap se voient priver de leur fertilité aux États-Unis. Afin de comprendre ce qui sous-tend cette violation aujourd’hui, nous retracerons l’évolution de la conception juridique de la stérilisation forcée des femmes en situation de handicap dans ce pays. À la lumière du droit international tel qu’il protège les femmes en situation de handicap aujourd’hui, il sera possible de comprendre certaines des raisons qui font en sorte qu’encore aujourd’hui, des femmes en situation de handicap se font stériliser sans leur consentement.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".