Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores how the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (The Protocol or African Women’s Protocol), concerned with realising gender equality in Africa, can guarantee gender equality yet retain African women’s valued cultural identity within customary African marriages. These marriages have certain cultural practices that are fundamental to their existence. This exploration is significant, bearing in mind the tensions raised by the contentious universalist versus cultural relativist debates on how human rights are understood. These tensions are evident where on the one hand, universalists argue that certain cultural practices that usually occur within customary African marriages undermine gender equality. On the other hand, cultural relativists maintain that these customary marriage practices are culturally acceptable and integral to the cultural identity of African women. Based on these contentions, this article identifies the Protocol’s strategies employed to douse these tensions within the customary African marriage context. These strategies are determined by examining the treaty’s marriage-related obligations outlined in Article 6 (a–c).
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 | 0.057 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".