Radical Feminism and Family Law: Addressing Gender Bias, Reforming, and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research undertakes a comprehensive exploration of reproductive rights and abortion within the broader context of gender politics, with a keen emphasis on the influence of radical feminism. Reproductive rights, extending beyond mere health and medical concerns, intersect with societal, ethical, religious, and political dimensions. Through this lens, the study investigates global reproductive policies and the international legal stance on abortion. The ascendancy of radical feminism and its critiques against historically entrenched patriarchal structures form a core component of this discourse. The article further delves into the legal histories and controversies surrounding both reproductive and abortion rights, probing into their evolving legal frameworks, international regulations, and the multifaceted debates linked to their acceptability. Through the interplay of these elements, the research ultimately converges on the broader implications these topics have on global human rights, women’s socio-economic standings, and the fluid realm of gender dynamics. The overarching goal is to shed light on these intricate relationships, contributing to a more equitable and inclusive understanding of evolving gender politics.
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 | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".