NEUTRALIDAD DEL DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO EN CUANTO AL GÉNERO, UNA FORMA DE VIOLENCIA DE GÉNERO INSTITUCIONAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La incorporación de la perspectiva de género en Derecho internacional privado es difícil, por su carácter técnico y abstracto. Las autoridades que aplican estas normas intentan corregir las distorsiones generadas por la ausencia de enfoque de género en esta disciplina a través de correctivos como el orden público internacional, para alcanzar la justicia del caso concreto y proteger derechos fundamentales. Pero, estas correcciones son insuficientes para aplicar la perspectiva de género, porque no remueven los obstáculos que están en el origen de la discriminación de la mujer. La ausencia de perspectiva de género en estas normas es una forma de violencia institucional, que habilita la incorporación en el ordenamiento jurídico de normas que, pretendiendo defender la libertad de la mujer, conducen a normalizar su subordiscriminación. Es precisa una revolución del Derecho internacional privado, que vaya más allá de los efectos inmediatos de las normas reguladoras de las relaciones privadas internacionales
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".