Indigenous women, multiple violences, and legal activism: Beyond the dichotomy of human rights as “law” and as “ideas for social movements”
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This review interrogates the divide between human rights “as ideas for social movements” and human rights “as law” that permeates the literature on human rights law and gender violence by putting it into conversation with the scholarship on Indigenous women's legal activism against the multiple forms of violence that they face. This divide obscures the ways in which Indigenous women across the Americas have appropriated and re‐signified the discourse and practice of human rights by engaging in formal legal processes at the community, domestic, and supranational levels. I problematize this dichotomy and argue that human rights “as ideas for social movements” and “as law” go hand in hand to challenge the multiple injustices affecting the lives of Indigenous women. This review invites sociologists to consider the experiences of Indigenous women's legal activism and its relationship to colonialism in their analyses of social movement dynamics and it contributes to decentering analyses on legal mobilization that are based on the global North.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it