Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The subject matter of this volume of essays—based on the 2002series of Oxford Amnesty Lectures—is gender, sexuality and human rights. That issues of gender and sexuality fall squarely within the concern of international and national human rights law cannot be doubted. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is, like sex discrimination, now recognized as being prohibited under the prevailing human rights instruments in Western Europe and Canada, as well as under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights1 In the USA, measures which discriminate on the basis of sex are open to judicial review under the Fourteenth Amendment’s ‘heightened scrutiny’ standard.2 US law has lagged behind somewhat in relation to sexual orientation, but a major breakthrough has been achieved in the Supreme Court’s rulings that it is contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to criminalize consensual sex acts between two persons of the same sex, and that laws which are motivated by ‘animus’ towards members of sexual minority groups cannot withstand scrutiny.3 At a deeper level, however, it is less readily apparent how we should understand and categorize human rights violations based on sex and sexual orientation. Are they, for example, two separate types of discriminatory social practice, or should we see them as examples of a common phenomenon? Does their inclusion within the remit of human rights abuses require us to refine what we mean by human rights?
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.479 | 0.270 |
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".